Dissociating preferences from evaluations following subliminal conditioning
- PMID: 32044528
- DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103023
Dissociating preferences from evaluations following subliminal conditioning
Abstract
Preferences towards unfamiliar drink brands may be influenced through subliminal conditioning. This can involve associating unfamiliar brands (CS) with positively valenced attributes (US) under constrained visual conditions to prevent the former's conscious detection. According to learning theory, CS associated with positive US should become increasingly preferred as the latter's positive valences generalizes (transfer) across associated CS. Similarly, correlating CS with negative US should reduce CS-associated preferences. There is some evidence that CS-associated preferences can be reliably influenced through subliminal conditioning (Elgendi et al., 2018). Conversely, there is also evidence that subliminal conditioning does not effectively alter evaluations of CS valence (Heycke et al., 2018). Those works suggest CS preferences may be more susceptible to subliminal valence transfer relative to CS evaluations. We explored this hypothesis presently, where four pairs of supraliminal/visible and subliminal trigrams (CS) were respectively associated with four US categories varied along aggregate valence (100% positive, 80% positive, 20% positive, 0% positive). CS evaluations and preferences were recorded before and after conditioning. Bayesian analyses revealed US valence manipulations were likely to shift preferences, but not evaluations, of subliminal CS. Across supraliminal CS, Bayesian and frequentist analyses indicated US valence was significant and likely to shift preferences and evaluations. The present study demonstrates preferences may be influenced through subliminal conditioning even as evaluations are not.
Keywords: Drink preferences; Evaluation; Learning; Motivation; Subliminal conditioning.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Augmenting salivation, but not evaluations, through subliminal conditioning of eating-related words.Behav Processes. 2022 Jan;194:104541. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104541. Epub 2021 Nov 21. Behav Processes. 2022. PMID: 34813914
-
Disentangling affect from self-esteem using subliminal conditioning.Behav Processes. 2023 Nov;213:104965. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2023.104965. Epub 2023 Nov 4. Behav Processes. 2023. PMID: 37931670
-
Effects of Nodal Distance on Conditioned Stimulus Valences Across Time.Front Psychol. 2019 Apr 10;10:742. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00742. eCollection 2019. Front Psychol. 2019. PMID: 31024392 Free PMC article.
-
Extinction of Pavlovian conditioning: The influence of trial number and reinforcement history.Behav Processes. 2017 Aug;141(Pt 1):19-25. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.04.017. Epub 2017 May 1. Behav Processes. 2017. PMID: 28473250 Review.
-
Unconscious integration: Current evidence for integrative processing under subliminal conditions.Br J Psychol. 2023 May;114(2):430-456. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12631. Epub 2023 Jan 23. Br J Psychol. 2023. PMID: 36689339 Review.
Cited by
-
A conditional judgment procedure for probing evaluative conditioning effects in the absence of feelings of remembering.Behav Res Methods. 2024 Mar;56(3):1140-1163. doi: 10.3758/s13428-023-02081-w. Epub 2023 Sep 20. Behav Res Methods. 2024. PMID: 37730932 Free PMC article.
-
Intra-group differences in skin tone influence evaluative and perceptual face processing.PLoS One. 2024 Jan 2;19(1):e0296172. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296172. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38166065 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources