Generalization Effects in Evaluative Conditioning: Evidence for Attitude Transfer Effects from Single Exemplars to Social Categories

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2017 Feb 16

PMID 28197118

Authors

Tina Glaser

Dieta Kuchenbrandt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The present research investigated whether evaluatively conditioned attitudes toward members of a social category (CSs) generalize to other stimuli belonging to the same category as the CSs (generalization at the stimulus level) and to the category itself (generalization at the category level). In four experiments, USs were paired with schematic or naturalistic CSs belonging to certain fictitious groups. Afterward, attitudes toward the CSs, toward non-presented exemplars of the CS category, and toward the CS category were assessed. Results revealed evidence for generalization effects in EC on both the stimulus and the category level. Transfer effects were greater when participants' awareness of the CS-US contingency (CA) was high. Moreover, we found differences in generalization between the stimulus and category level, indicating that different processes might contribute to the effects. Theoretical and practical implications such as using EC as a tool for changing attitudes toward social groups will be discussed.

References

Levey A, Martin I . Classical conditioning of human 'evaluative' responses. Behav Res Ther. 1975; 13(4):221-6. DOI: 10.1016/0005-7967(75)90026-1. View

Hofmann W, De Houwer J, Perugini M, Baeyens F, Crombez G . Evaluative conditioning in humans: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2010; 136(3):390-421. DOI: 10.1037/a0018916. View

Spruyt A, Klauer K, Gast A, Schryver M, De Houwer J . Feature-specific attention allocation modulates the generalization of recently acquired likes and dislikes. Exp Psychol. 2013; 61(2):85-98. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000228. View

Glaser T, Dickel N, Liersch B, Rees J, Sussenbach P, Bohner G . Lateral Attitude Change. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2014; 19(3):257-76. DOI: 10.1177/1088868314546489. View

Hutter M, Sweldens S . Implicit misattribution of evaluative responses: contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning requires simultaneous stimulus presentations. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012; 142(3):638-43. DOI: 10.1037/a0029989. View

Minear M, Park D . A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2005; 36(4):630-3. DOI: 10.3758/bf03206543. View

Ensari N, Miller N . The out-group must not be so bad after all: the effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 83(2):313-29. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.313. View

Olson M, Fazio R . Reducing automatically activated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006; 32(4):421-33. DOI: 10.1177/0146167205284004. View

Pettigrew T . Intergroup contact theory. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004; 49:65-85. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65. View

10.

De Houwer J . A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. Span J Psychol. 2007; 10(2):230-41. DOI: 10.1017/s1138741600006491. View

11.

Baeyens F, Eelen P, Crombez G, Van den Bergh O . Human evaluative conditioning: acquisition trials, presentation schedule, evaluative style and contingency awareness. Behav Res Ther. 1992; 30(2):133-42. DOI: 10.1016/0005-7967(92)90136-5. View

12.

Stahl C, Unkelbach C, Corneille O . On the respective contributions of awareness of unconditioned stimulus valence and unconditioned stimulus identity in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009; 97(3):404-20. DOI: 10.1037/a0016196. View

13.

Pettigrew T, Tropp L . A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006; 90(5):751-83. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. View

14.

Hutter M, Kutzner F, Fiedler K . What is learned from repeated pairings? On the scope and generalizability of evaluative conditioning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013; 143(2):631-43. DOI: 10.1037/a0033409. View

15.

Walther E . Guilty by mere association: evaluative conditioning and the spreading attitude effect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 82(6):919-34. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.919. View

16.

Pleyers G, Corneille O, Luminet O, Yzerbyt V . Aware and (dis)liking: item-based analyses reveal that valence acquisition via evaluative conditioning emerges only when there is contingency awareness. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(1):130-44. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.130. View

17.

Mitchell C, De Houwer J, Lovibond P . The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behav Brain Sci. 2009; 32(2):183-98. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X09000855. View

18.

Stahl C, Unkelbach C . Evaluative learning with single versus multiple unconditioned stimuli: the role of contingency awareness. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009; 35(2):286-91. DOI: 10.1037/a0013255. View

19.

Balas R, Sweklej J . Evaluative conditioning may occur with and without contingency awareness. Psychol Res. 2011; 76(3):304-10. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0336-5. View

20.

Kattner F . Revisiting the relation between contingency awareness and attention: evaluative conditioning relies on a contingency focus. Cogn Emot. 2011; 26(1):166-75. DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2011.565036. View