CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Evaluative conditioning of artificial grammars: Evidence that subjectively-unconscious structures bias affective evaluations of novel stimuli.

Open access
Jurchiș, Răzvan, Costea, Andrei, Dienes, Zoltan, Miclea, Mircea, Opre, Adrian·2020·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
DOI 10.1037/xge0000734
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Evaluative conditioning (EC) refers to the acquisition of emotional valence by an initially-neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus; CS), after being paired with an emotional stimulus (unconditioned stimulus; US). An important issue regards whether, when participants are unaware of the CS-US contingency, the affective valence can generalize to new stimuli that share similarities with the CS. Previous studies have shown that generalization of EC effects appears only when participants are aware of the contingencies, but we suggest that this is because (a) the contingencies typically used in these studies are salient and easy to detect consciously, and (b) the performance-based measures of awareness (so-called “objective measures”), typically used in these studies, tend to overestimate the amount of available conscious knowledge. We report a preregistered study in which participants (N = 217) were exposed to letter strings generated from two complex artificial grammars that are difficult to decipher consciously. Stimuli from one grammar were paired with positive USs, while those from the other grammar were paired with negative USs. Subsequently, participants evaluated new, previously-unseen, stimuli from the positively-conditioned grammar more positively than new stimuli from the negatively-conditioned grammar. Importantly, this effect appeared even when trial-by-trial subjective measures indicated lack of relevant conscious knowledge. We provide evidence for the generalization of EC effects even without subjective awareness of the structures that enable those generalizations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xge0000734

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some studies found evidence for memory-independent EC, while other studies did not.

    “Depending on the procedure and analytic approach, some studies found evidence for memory-independent EC (e.g., Hütter & Sweldens 2013, Jurchiș et al. 2020, Walther & Nagengast 2006, Waroquier et al. 2020), while other studies did not (e.g., Kurdi et al. 2022, Mierop et al. 2017, Pleyers et al. 2007, Stahl et al. 2009).”

    From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Jurchiș et al. 2020

    The Abstract (page unavailable) reports an EC generalization effect even when subjective measures indicated a lack of relevant conscious knowledge. The Discussion (page unavailable) clarifies that the study measured awareness of grammar–valence relations, not whether participants remembered the valence paired with the evaluated strings. It therefore supports EC without subjective awareness, but not a direct finding about independence from measured contingency memory. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2019). Gorilla in our Midst: An online behav- ioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x · DOI
  2. Aust, F., Haaf, J. M., & Stahl, C. (2019). A memory-based judg- ment account of expectancy-liking dissociations in evaluative conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(3), 417-439. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000600 · DOI
  3. Baars, B. J. (1997). In the Theatre of Consciousness. The Work- space of the Mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  4. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II: sex differences in picture processing. Emotion, 1(3), 300-319.
  5. Brooks, L. R., & Vokey, J. R. (1991). Abstract analogies and ab- stracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(3), 316-323.
  6. Corneille, O., & Stahl, C. (2019). Associative attitude learning: A closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(2), 161-189. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318763261 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cummins, J., Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2019, May 21). The AM- Peror's New Clothes: Performance on the Affect Misattribution Procedure is Mainly Driven by Awareness of Influence of the Primes. Doi: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d5zn8 · DOI
  8. Dienes, Z. (2008b). Understanding Psychology as a Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  9. Dienes, Z. (2012). Conscious versus unconscious learning of structure. In P. Rebuschat & J. Williams (Eds), Statistical Learning and Language Acquisition. Mouton de Gruyter Pub- lishers (pp. 337 -364).
  10. Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-signifi- cant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 781. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Dienes, Z., Altmann, G., Kwan, L., & Goode, A. (1995). Uncon- scious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategi- cally. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1322-1338. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1322 · DOI
  12. Dienes, Z., & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69(5-6), 338-351. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0208-3 · DOI
  13. De Houwer, J. (2018). Propositional models of evaluative condi- tioning. Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(3), e28046. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i3.28046 · DOI
  14. Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1984). A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how ab- stract? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(4), 541-555. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.4.541 · DOI
  15. Eder, A. B., Krishna, A., & Van Dessel, P. (in press). Operant Evaluative Conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition
  16. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229-238. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Fu, Q., Dienes, Z., & Fu, X. (2010). Can unconscious knowledge allow control in sequence learning?. Consciousness and Cogni- tion, 19(1), 462-474.
  18. Glaser, T., & Kuchenbrandt, D. (2017). Generalization effects in evaluative conditioning: Evidence for attitude transfer effects from single exemplars to social categories. Frontiers in Psy- chology, 8, 103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00103 · DOI
  19. Gomez, R. L. (1997). Transfer and complexity in artificial gram- mar learning. Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 154-207.
  20. Greenwald, A. G., & De Houwer, J. (2017). Unconscious condi- tioning: Demonstration of existence and difference from con- scious conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen- eral, 146(12), 1705-1721. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000371 · DOI
  21. Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F., & Crom- bez, G. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: a meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390-421. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018916 · DOI
  22. Hütter, M., Kutzner, F., & Fiedler, K. (2014). What is learned from repeated pairings? On the scope and generalizability of evaluative conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 631-643. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033409 · DOI
  23. Hütter, M., Sweldens, S., Stahl, C., Unkelbach, C., & Klauer, K. C. (2012). Dissociating contingency awareness and conditioned attitudes: Evidence of contingency-unaware evaluative condi- tioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 539-557.
  24. Hütter, M., & Tigges, D. (2019). On the external validity of evalu- ative conditioning: Evaluative responses generalize to modified instances of conditioned stimuli. Journal of Experimental So- cial Psychology, 84, 103824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103824 · DOI
  25. Ivanchei, I. I., & Moroshkina, N. V. (2018). The effect of subjec- tive awareness measures on performance in artificial grammar learning task. Consciousness and Cognition, 57, 116-133. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.11.010 · DOI
  26. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separat- ing automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513-541. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F Jurchiș, R., Costea, A., Dienes, Z., Mircea, M., & Opre, A. (2019, November 13). Evaluative conditioning of artificial grammars (Supplementary information and preregistration). Retrieved from osf.io/5jgwp · DOI
  27. Kurdi, B., Lozano, S., & Banaji, M. R. (2017). Introducing the open affective standardized image set (OASIS). Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 457-470. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0715-3 · DOI
  28. Lähteenmäki, M., Hyönä, J., Koivisto, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2015). Affective processing requires awareness. Journal of Ex- perimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 339-345. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000040 · DOI
  29. Leganes-Fonteneau, M., Scott, R., & Duka, T. (2018). Attentional responses to stimuli associated with a reward can occur in the absence of knowledge of their predictive values. Behavioural Brain Research, 341, 26-36. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.12.015 · DOI
  30. Levey, A. B., & Martin, I. (1975). Classical conditioning of hu- man 'evaluative' responses. Behaviour Research and Ther- apy, 13(4), 221-226. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0005- 7967(75)90026-1 · DOI
  31. Ling, X., Zheng, L., Guo, X., Li, S., Song, S., Sun, L., & Dienes, Z. (2018). Cross cultural differences in implicit learning of chunks versus symmetries. Royal Society Open Science, 5, doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180469 · DOI
  32. Lotz, A., & Kinder, A. (2006). Transfer in artificial grammar learning: The role of repetition information. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 707-715.
  33. Marchewka, A., Żurawski, Ł., Jednoróg, K., & Grabowska, A. (2014). The Nencki Affective Picture System (NAPS): Introduction to a novel, standardized, wide-range, high-quality, realistic picture database. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 596-610. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0379-1 · DOI
  34. Mann, T. C., Kurdi, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). How effectively can implicit evaluations be updated? Using evaluative state- ments after aversive repeated evaluative pairings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000701 · DOI
  35. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2018). The Enigma of Reason. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  36. Meulemans, T., & Van der Linden, M. (1997). Associative chunk strength in artificial grammar learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 1007 - 1028. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.23.4.1007. · DOI
  37. Mierop, A., Hütter, M., & Corneille, O. (2017). Resource availa- bility and explicit memory largely determine evaluative condi- tioning effects in a paradigm claimed to be conducive to im- plicit attitude acquisition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(7), 758-767.
  38. Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review. Behavioral and Brain Sci- ences, 37(1), 1-19. Doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12003214 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Norman, E., & Price, M. C. (2012). Social intuition as a form of implicit learning: Sequences of body movements are learned less explicitly than letter sequences. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8(2), 121-131. doi: 10.2478/v10053-008-0109-x · DOI
  40. Norman, E., Price, M. C., & Jones, E. (2011). Measuring strategic control in artificial grammar learning. Consciousness and Cog- nition, 20, 1920-1929. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.con- cog.2011.07.008 · DOI
  41. Norman, E., Scott, R. B., Price, M. C., & Dienes, Z. (2016). The relationship between strategic control and conscious structural knowledge in artificial grammar learning. Consciousness and Cognition, 42, 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.con- cog.2016.03.014 · DOI
  42. Norman, E., Scott, R. B., Price, M. C., Jones, E., & Dienes, Z. (2019). Can unconscious structural knowledge be strategi- cally controlled? In Cleeremans, A., Allakhverdov, V., & Ku- valdina, M. (Eds), Implicit learning: 50 years on. Routledge (pp 159-173).
  43. Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2006). Reducing automatically acti- vated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 421-433. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284004 · DOI
  44. Paciorek, A., & Williams, J. N. (2015). Semantic generalization in implicit language learning. Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 989-1002.
  45. Ramsøy, T. Z., & Overgaard, M. (2004). Introspection and sub- liminal perception. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000041900.30172. · DOI
  46. Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Jour- nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855-863. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80149-X · DOI
  47. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513-523.
  48. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological inquiry, 14(3-4), 296-303. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682896 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Scott, R. B., & Dienes, Z. (2008). The conscious, the unconscious, and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(5), 1264-1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012943 · DOI
  50. Scott, R. B., & Dienes, Z. (2010). Knowledge applied to new do- mains: The unconscious succeeds where the conscious fails. Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 391-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012943 · DOI
  51. Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts and R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of Cognition (pp. 202-220).
  52. Shea, N., & Frith, C. D. (2019). The Global Workspace Needs Metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 560-571. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.007 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Stahl, C., & Unkelbach, C. (2009). Evaluative learning with single versus multiple unconditioned stimuli: The role of contingency awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Be- havior Processes, 35(2), 286-291.
  54. Stahl, C., Unkelbach, C., & Corneille, O. (2009). On the respec- tive contributions of awareness of unconditioned stimulus va- lence and unconditioned stimulus identity in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 404-420. doi: 10.1037/a0016196 · DOI
  55. Sweldens, S., Corneille, O., & Yzerbyt, V. (2014). The role of awareness in attitude formation through evaluative condition- ing. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 187- 209. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314527832 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Sweldens, S., Tuk, M. A., & Hütter, M. (2017). How to study consciousness in consumer research, A commentary on Williams and Poehlman. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 266-275. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx044 · DOI
  57. Timmermans, B., & Cleeremans, A. (2015). How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods. In M. Overgaard (Ed.), Behavioural methods in consciousness research (pp. 21- 46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/ac- prof:oso/9780199688890.003.0003 · DOI
  58. Unkelbach, C., Stahl, C., & Förderer, S. (2012). Changing CS fea- tures alters evaluative responses in evaluative condition- ing. Learning and Motivation, 43(3), 127-134. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2012.04.003 · DOI
  59. Wan, L., Dienes, Z., & Fu, X. (2008). Intentional control based on familiarity in artificial grammar learning. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(4), 1209-1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.con- cog.2008.06.007 · DOI
  60. Wierzchoń, M., Asanowicz, D., Paulewicz, B., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Subjective measures of consciousness in artificial grammar learning task. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1141-1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jurchiș, R., Costea, A., Dienes, Z., Miclea, M., & Opre, A.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-09
Volume
149
Issue
9
Pages
1800-1809
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
DOI
10.1037/xge0000734
OpenAlex
W2998779927
Cited by
30
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
evaluative conditioning, artificial grammar, unconscious learning, affective evaluation, generalization, subjective awareness, conscious knowledge, positive and negative associations, novel stimuli
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Awareness, Conditioning, Classical, Female, Generalization, Psychological, Humans, Linguistics, Male, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review