Cited by 9Social and Intergroup PsychologyMemory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unaware Attitude Formation in the Surveillance Task? Revisiting the Findings of Moran et al. (2021)

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Moran et al. (2021) report a multi-lab registered replication of Olson and Fazio’s (2001) surveillance task. The surveillance task is an incidental learning procedure over the course of which participants observe pairings of conditioned stimuli (CSs) and unconditioned stimuli (USs) while engaging in a distracting secondary task. Unaware evaluative conditioning (EC) effects are inferred if participants who fail to report the CS–US contingencies on a post-hoc measure show preference for the CSpos over the CSneg. Moran et al. claimed to establish such effects relying on the criteria used by Olson and Fazio to exclude contingency aware participants from analyses. Here we reexamine Moran et al.’s data using more fine-grained analytic strategies. We show that the contingency awareness measures used by Olson and Fazio and, by extension, Moran et al. lack adequate reliability and validity. Moreover, even assuming valid awareness measures, Bayesian analyses did not provide unambiguous evidence for unaware EC effects under any exclusion criterion and provided decisive evidence against such effects in most models. Finally, a separate analysis that distinguished between fully aware, partially aware, and fully unaware participants shows that evidence for unaware EC is due to the inclusion of partially aware participants in the purportedly unaware subsample. These reanalyses suggest that unaware EC as indexed by the surveillance task has yet to be convincingly demonstrated. We discuss the conceptual, theoretical, and applied implications of these findings with regard to the potential for unaware attitude formation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5334/irsp.546

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A high-powered replication of Olson & Fazio's (2001) original study found that EC effects in the surveillance task are driven by a subset of consciously encoded CS-US pairings.

    “a high-powered replication of Olson & Fazio's (2001) original study found that EC effects in the surveillance task are driven by a subset of consciously encoded CS–US pairings (Kurdi et al. 2022, Moran et al. 2021).”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. 2009, Associative learning requires associations, not propositions, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 217
  2. 2019, How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial, Evidence Based Mental Health, 22, 153, 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 2010, Evaluative conditioning and conscious knowledge of contingencies: A correlational investigation with large samples, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2313, 10.1080/17470211003802442 · DOI
  4. 2017, brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan, Journal of Statistical Software, 80, 1
  5. 2019, Associative attitude learning: A closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23, 161, 10.1177/1088868318763261 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 2018, Evidence for the role of cognitive resources in flavour–flavour evaluative conditioning, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2297
  7. 2014, A propositional model of implicit evaluation, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 342, 10.1111/spc3.12111 · DOI
  8. 2014, Overcoming correlational pitfalls: Experimental evidence suggests that evaluative conditioning occurs for explicit but not implicit encoding of CS–US pairings, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 250, 10.1177/1948550613490969 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 2010, Evaluative conditioning of high-novelty stimuli does not seem to be based on an automatic form of associative learning, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1118, 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.004 · DOI
  10. 2014, Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results, Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1507
  11. 1993, The psychology of attitudes
  12. 2017, Construct validation in social and personality research, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 370, 10.1177/1948550617693063 · DOI
  13. 2014, Implicit and explicit evaluation: A brief review of the associative–propositional evaluation model, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 448, 10.1111/spc3.12124 · DOI
  14. 2012, What do memory data tell us about the role of contingency awareness in evaluative conditioning?, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 617, 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.002 · DOI
  15. 1995, Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes, Psychological Review, 102, 4, 10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 1944, A basis for scaling qualitative data, American Sociological Review, 9, 139, 10.2307/2086306 · DOI
  17. 2010, Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390, 10.1037/a0018916 · DOI
  18. 2018, Does evaluative conditioning depend on awareness? Evidence from a continuous flash suppression paradigm, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 1641
  19. 2019, Hidden invalidity among 15 commonly used measures in social and personality psychology, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3, 166
  20. 2009, Implicit misattribution as a mechanism underlying evaluative conditioning, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 933, 10.1037/a0014747 · DOI
  21. 2020, Evaluative conditioning of artificial grammars: Evidence that subjectively unconscious structures bias affective evaluations of novel stimuli, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1800, 10.1037/xge0000734 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 2012, Revisiting the relation between contingency awareness and attention: Evaluative conditioning relies on a contingency focus, Cognition & Emotion, 26, 166, 10.1080/02699931.2011.565036 · DOI
  23. 1992, Intact artificial grammar learning in amnesia: Dissociation of classification learning and explicit memory for specific instances, Psychological Science, 3, 172, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00021.x · DOI
  24. 1975, Classical conditioning of human “evaluative” responses, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 13, 221, 10.1016/0005-7967(75)90026-1 · DOI
  25. 2002, The role of awareness in Pavlovian conditioning: Empirical evidence and theoretical implications, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 3
  26. 1994, The number of Guttman errors as a simple and powerful person-fit statistic, Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 311, 10.1177/014662169401800402 · DOI
  27. 2009, The propositional nature of human associative learning, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 183, 10.1017/S0140525X09000855 · DOI
  28. 2006, Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297, 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297 · DOI
  29. 2021, Incidental attitude formation via the surveillance task: A preregistered replication of the Olson and Fazio (2001) study, Psychological Science, 32, 120, 10.1177/0956797620968526 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 2001, Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning, Psychological Science, 12, 413, 10.1111/1467-9280.00376 · DOI
  31. 2011, A Bayes factor meta-analysis of Bem’s ESP claim, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 682, 10.3758/s13423-011-0088-7 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 2006, Of two minds: Forming and changing valence-inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes, Psychological Science, 17, 954, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01811.x · DOI
  33. 2018, Infant statistical learning, Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 181, 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011805 · DOI
  34. 2017, Regressive research: The pitfalls of post hoc data selection in the study of unconscious mental processes, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 752, 10.3758/s13423-016-1170-y · DOI · Paper page
  35. 1994, Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367, 10.1017/S0140525X00035032 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 2016, Subliminal evaluative conditioning? Above-chance CS identification may be necessary and insufficient for attitude learning, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1107, 10.1037/xge0000191 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 2014, The role of awareness in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 187, 10.1177/1088868314527832 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 2019, Unconscious or underpowered? Probabilistic cuing of visual attention, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 160
  39. 2009, How many studies do you need?, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 215
  40. Vazire, S. (2019). “Thoughts inspired by the @replicats workshop: Replicability of Evidence asks ‘Would I get consistent evidence if I did the same thing again?’ Replicability of Inferences asks ‘Would others draw the same inference from this evidence as the claim in the paper?’ (1/5).” [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/siminevazire/status/1148149981292978178
  41. 2010, Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package, Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1
  42. 2020, Distinguishing the role of conscious and unconscious knowledge in evaluative conditioning, Cognition, 205, 104460, 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104460 · DOI
  43. 2020, The generalizability crisis, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kurdi, B., Hussey, I., Stahl, C., Hughes, S., Unkelbach, C., Ferguson, M. J., & Corneille, O.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • UCLouvain (BE)
Corresponding author
Kurdi, Benedek
Venue
International Review of Social Psychology
Published
2022
Volume
35
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0992-986X (ISSN-L)
  • 2119-4130
OpenAlex
W4285292899
Cited by
9
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Review of Social Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • International Review of Social Psychology (Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche Internationale en Psychologie Sociale) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
FRS-FNRS (T.0061.18)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
surveillance task, evaluative conditioning, contingency awareness, incidental learning, reanalysis, Bayesian analysis, multi-lab replication

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