What You Feel Is What You See: A Binding Perspective on Evaluative Conditioning

In this paper, we outline the predominant theoretical perspectives on evaluative conditioning (EC)—the changes in liking that are due to the pairing of stimuli—identify their weaknesses, and propose a new framework, the binding perspective on EC, which might help to overcome at least some of these issues. Based on feature integration theory (Treisman & Gelade, 1980, https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5) and the theory of event coding (TEC; Hommel, Musseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103), we assume that EC depends on a selective integration mechanism that binds relevant CS, US, and action features into an event-file, while simultaneously inhibiting features irrelevant for current goals. This perspective examines hitherto unspecified processes relevant to the encoding of CS-US pairs and their consequences for behavior, which we hope will stimulate further theoretical development. We also present some preliminary evidence for binding in EC and discuss the scope and limitations of this perspective.

[1]  N. Deroost,et al.  Is sequence awareness mandatory for perceptual sequence learning: An assessment using a pure perceptual sequence learning design. , 2018, Acta psychologica.

[2]  R. Rescorla.  Simultaneous and successive associations in sensory preconditioning. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[3]  Christian Frings,et al.  The structure of distractor-response bindings: Conditions for configural and elemental integration. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  H. Haider,et al.  Implicit visual learning: How the task set modulates learning by determining the stimulus–response binding , 2014, Consciousness and Cognition.

[5]  Bertram Gawronski,et al.  Can the Formation of Conditioned Attitudes Be Intentionally Controlled? , 2014, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[6]  M. Perugini,et al.  Evaluative conditioning in humans: a meta-analysis. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Florian Kattner.  Reconsidering the (in)sensitivity of evaluative conditioning to reinforcement density and CS–US contingency , 2014 .

[8]  Carina Giesen,et al.  You Better Stop! Binding “Stop” Tags to Irrelevant Stimulus Features , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  K. Rothermund,et al.  “Although Quite Nice, I Was Somehow Not Attracted by That Person” , 2013 .

[10]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Grounding Attention in Action Control: The Intentional Control of Selection , 2010 .

[11]  M. Chun,et al.  Selective attention modulates implicit learning , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[12]  Paul D. Kieffaber,et al.  Memory systems do not divide on consciousness: Reinterpreting memory in terms of activation and binding. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  O. Corneille,et al.  On the Respective Contributions of Awareness of Unconditioned Stimulus Valence and Unconditioned Stimulus Identity in Attitude Formation through Evaluative Conditioning a Memory-based Criterion of Awareness Examining the Role of Awareness in Ec at the Level of Cs-us Contingencies Contingency Awarene , 2022 .

[14]  B. Hommel.  Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  O. Luminet,et al.  Evaluative conditioning may incur attentional costs. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[16]  Bertram Gawronski,et al.  What do memory data tell us about the role of contingency awareness in evaluative conditioning , 2012 .

[17]  A. Ohman,et al.  Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  J. de Houwer,et al.  Associative learning of likes and dislikes: a review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  G. Davey.  Defining the important theoretical questions to ask about evaluative conditioning: A reply to Martin and Levey (1994) , 1994 .

[20]  B. Scholl,et al.  The Automaticity of Visual Statistical Learning Statistical Learning , 2005 .

[21]  C. Frings,et al.  Ignorance reflects preference: the influence of selective ignoring on evaluative conditioning , 2017 .

[22]  Georg Halbeisen,et al.  The role of recollection in evaluative conditioning , 2014 .

[23]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  The theory of event coding (TEC) as embodied-cognition framework , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[24]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Why don't we perceive our brain states? , 1992 .

[25]  Georg Halbeisen,et al.  Evaluative Conditioning is Sensitive to the Encoding of CS-US Contingencies , 2016 .

[26]  G. Keren,et al.  Two Is Not Always Better Than One , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[27]  I. Vermeir,et al.  Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap , 2006 .

[28]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[30]  B. Nagengast,et al.  Evaluative conditioning in social psychology: Facts and speculations , 2005, Cognition & emotion.

[31]  G. Bodenhausen,et al.  Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. , 2006, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  A. Treisman.  The binding problem , 1996, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[33]  Hilde Haider,et al.  Abstract Feature Codes: The Building Blocks of the Implicit Learning System , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  J. de Houwer,et al.  Evaluative Conditioning without Directly Experienced Pairings of the Conditioned and the Unconditioned Stimuli , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[35]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[36]  Chris Janiszewski,et al.  Evaluative Conditioning Procedures and the Resilience of Conditioned Brand Attitudes , 2010 .

[37]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Consciousness is not necessary for visual feature binding , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  D. Wigboldus,et al.  The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environment on Consumer Behavior , 2005 .

[39]  K. Rothermund,et al.  What you see is what will change: Evaluative conditioning effects depend on a focus on valence , 2011, Cognition & emotion.

[40]  J. Houwer.  The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models , 2009 .

[41]  Richard S. Zemel,et al.  Learning to Segment Images Using Dynamic Feature Binding , 1991, Neural Computation.

[42]  O. Van den Bergh,et al.  Human evaluative conditioning: acquisition trials, presentation schedule, evaluative style and contingency awareness. , 1992, Behaviour research and therapy.

[43]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Integrating faces, houses, motion, and action: spontaneous binding across ventral and dorsal processing streams. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[44]  A. Field,et al.  Associative learning of likes and dislikes: Some current controversies and possible ways forward , 2005, Cognition & emotion.

[45]  M. Perugini,et al.  Expanding the boundaries of evaluative learning research: How intersecting regularities shape our likes and dislikes. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[46]  S. Higgs,et al.  Exploring evaluative conditioning using a working memory task , 2002 .

[47]  J. Haaf,et al.  Subliminal evaluative conditioning? Above-chance CS identification may be necessary and insufficient for attitude learning. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[48]  C. Frings,et al.  When congruence breeds preference: the influence of selective attention processes on evaluative conditioning , 2017, Cognition & emotion.

[49]  Christopher R. Jones,et al.  Implicit misattribution as a mechanism underlying evaluative conditioning. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  P. Lang,et al.  International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings (Tech. Rep. No. A-4) , 1999 .

[51]  J. Changeux,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.10 No.5 May 2006 Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy , 2022 .

[52]  E. Walther,et al.  The Role of Evaluative Conditioning in Attitude Formation , 2011 .

[53]  T. Mussweiler,et al.  Beyond awareness and resources: Evaluative conditioning may be sensitive to processing goals , 2009 .

[54]  R. Hassin,et al.  Short Article: Goal relevance and artificial grammar learning , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[55]  K. C. Klauer,et al.  Dissociating contingency awareness and conditioned attitudes: evidence of contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[56]  Georg Halbeisen,et al.  Dual-task interference in evaluative conditioning: Similarity matters! , 2015, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[57]  B. Nagengast,et al.  Evaluative conditioning and the awareness issue: assessing contingency awareness with the four-picture recognition test. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[58]  G. Davey,et al.  Conceptual Conditioning: Evidence for an Artifactual Account of Evaluative Learning , 1997 .

[59]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Do Implicit Attitudes Predict Actual Voting Behavior Particularly for Undecided Voters? , 2012, PloS one.

[60]  W. Stroebe,et al.  Goal Relevance Moderates Evaluative Conditioning Effects. , 2012 .

[61]  W. Singer.  Consciousness and the Binding Problem , 2001, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[62]  Christopher R. Jones,et al.  Evaluative Conditioning: The "How" Question. , 2010, Advances in experimental social psychology.

[63]  W. Stroebe,et al.  Beyond Vicary's fantasies: The impact of subliminal priming and brand choice , 2006 .

[64]  J. Houwer,et al.  Evaluative Conditioning , 2012 .

[65]  A. Field,et al.  Dissociating the effects of attention and contingency awareness on evaluative conditioning effects in the visual paradigm , 2005, Cognition & emotion.

[66]  A. Baddeley.  The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[67]  J. Houwer.  A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis of Evaluative Conditioning , 2007 .

[68]  John A Bargh,et al.  Liking is for doing: the effects of goal pursuit on automatic evaluation. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[69]  C. Spence,et al.  Crossmodal binding: Evaluating the “unity assumption” using audiovisual speech stimuli , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[70]  E. Higgins,et al.  The Ecology of Automaticity , 2010, Psychological science.

[71]  Florian Kattner.  Revisiting the relation between contingency awareness and attention: Evaluative conditioning relies on a contingency focus , 2012, Cognition & emotion.

[72]  Christopher J. Mitchell,et al.  The propositional nature of human associative learning , 2009, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[73]  D. Hermans,et al.  The role of CS-US contingency in human evaluative conditioning. , 1993, Behaviour research and therapy.

[74]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  Intermodal event files: integrating features across vision, audition, taction, and action , 2008, Psychological research.

[75]  P. Lang.  International Affective Picture System (IAPS) : Technical Manual and Affective Ratings , 1995 .