Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

An integrative review of dual- and single-process accounts of evaluative conditioning

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 1, pages 640–653 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The co-occurrence of a person, object or concept and a valent stimulus can change how a person evaluates the person, object or concept. Such effects of stimulus pairings on attitudes have been investigated using an experimental paradigm called evaluative conditioning. According to dual-process views, two classes of learning mechanism are involved in attitude formation via evaluative conditioning: one type of process is based on propositional reasoning about stimulus pairings, whereas the other generates evaluative conditioning effects in the absence of propositional reasoning. According to single-process views, propositional processes alone are sufficient to explain attitude formation. In this Review, I summarize contemporary dual- and single-process accounts of evaluative conditioning and discuss research that targets the defining characteristic of propositional processes (the encoding of the relationship between paired stimuli) from both perspectives. Both accounts can accommodate most empirical results, demonstrating that processes operating at encoding, representation and evaluation must be considered in explanations of evaluative conditioning effects. Moreover, greater theoretical precision regarding the encoding and representation of stimulus pairings is needed. The falsifiability of theoretical accounts would further be served by specifying the ecological factors that facilitate different learning mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Typical evaluative conditioning experiment.
Fig. 2: Different stages of evaluative learning.
Fig. 3: Variants of the evaluative conditioning paradigms targeting propositional (versus associative) encoding.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Conrey, F. R. & Smith, E. R. Attitude representation: attitudes as patterns in a distributed, connectionist representational system. Soc. Cogn. 25, 718–735 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Walther, E., Nagengast, B. & Trasselli, C. Evaluative conditioning in social psychology: facts and speculations. Cogn. Emot. 19, 175–196 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Capaldi, E. D. Conditioned food preferences. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 28, 1–33 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C. & Higgins, A. Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychol. Women Q. 37, 293–309 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Camp, N. P., Voigt, R., Jurafsky, D. & Eberhardt, J. L. The thin blue waveform: racial disparities in officer prosody undermine institutional trust in the police. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 121, 1157–1171 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. De Houwer, J., Thomas, S. & Baeyens, F. Associative learning of likes and dislikes: a review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychol. Bull. 127, 853–869 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Biegler, P. & Vargas, P. Feeling is believing: evaluative conditioning and the ethics of pharmaceutical advertising. J. Bioeth. Inq. 13, 271–279 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F. & Crombez, G. Evaluative conditioning in humans: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 136, 390–421 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Olson, M. A. & Fazio, R. H. Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning. Psychol. Sci. 12, 413–417 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jones, C. R., Fazio, R. H. & Olson, M. A. Implicit misattribution as a mechanism underlying evaluative conditioning. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 933–948 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Moran, T. et al. Incidental attitude formation via the surveillance task: a preregistered replication of the Olson and Fazio (2001) study. Psychol. Sci. 32, 120–131 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Priluck, R. & Till, B. D. The role of contingency awareness, involvement and need for cognition in attitude formation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 32, 329–344 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sweldens, S., Van Osselaer, S. M. J. & Janiszewski, C. Evaluative conditioning procedures and the resilience of conditioned brand attitudes. J. Consum. Res. 37, 473–489 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Houwer, J., Gawronski, B. & Barnes-Holmes, D. A functional-cognitive framework for attitude research. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 24, 252–287 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C. & Kardes, F. R. On the automatic activation of attitudes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 229–238 (1986).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464–1480 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bading, K., Stahl, C. & Rothermund, K. Why a standard IAT effect cannot provide evidence for association formation: the role of similarity construction. Cogn. Emot. 34, 128–143 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moran, T. & Bar-Anan, Y. The effect of object-valence relations on automatic evaluation. Cogn. Emot. 27, 743–752 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Corneille, O. & Stahl, C. Associative attitude learning: a closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 23, 161–189 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De Houwer, J. The propositional approach to associative learning as an alternative for association formation models. Learn. Behav. 37, 1–20 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J. & Lovibond, P. F. The propositional nature of human associative learning. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 183–198 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hütter, M. & Rothermund, K. Automatic processes in evaluative learning. Cogn. Emot. 34, 1–20 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Houwer, J. & Hughes, S. The Psychology Of Learning: An Introduction From A Functional-Cognitive Perspective (MIT Press, 2020).

  24. De Houwer, J., Van Dessel, P. & Moran, T. Attitudes beyond associations: on the role of propositional representations in stimulus evaluation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 61, 127–183 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fazio, R. H. Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Soc. Cogn. 25, 603–637 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol. Bull. 132, 692–731 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stahl, C. & Aust, F. Evaluative conditioning as memory-based judgment. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13, e28589 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bargh, J. A. in Handbook of Social Cognition: Basic Processes; Applications (eds Wyer, R. S. & Srull, T. K.) Vol. 1–2, 2nd edn, 1–40 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994).

  29. Melnikoff, D. E. & Bargh, J. A. The mythical number two. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 280–293 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moors, A. & De Houwer, J. Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychol. Bull. 132, 297–326 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Corneille, O. & Hütter, M. Implicit? What do you mean? A comprehensive review of the delusive implicitness construct in attitude research. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 24, 212–232 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gawronski, B. & Walther, E. What do memory data tell us about the role of contingency awareness in evaluative conditioning? J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 617–623 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Malejka, S., Vadillo, M. A., Dienes, Z. & Shanks, D. R. Correlation analysis to investigate unconscious mental processes: a critical appraisal and mini-tutorial. Cognition 212, 104667 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Newell, B. R. & Shanks, D. R. Unconscious influences on decision making: a critical review. Behav. Brain Sci. 37, 1–19 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shanks, D. R. Regressive research: the pitfalls of post hoc data selection in the study of unconscious mental processes. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 24, 752–775 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sweldens, S., Corneille, O. & Yzerbyt, V. The role of awareness in attitude formation through evaluative conditioning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 18, 187–209 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sweldens, S., Tuk, M. A. & Hütter, M. How to study consciousness in consumer research, a commentary on Williams and Poehlman. J. Consum. Res. 44, 266–275 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Vadillo, M. A., Malejka, S., Lee, D. Y. H., Dienes, Z. & Shanks, D. R. Raising awareness about measurement error in research on unconscious mental processes. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 29, 21–43 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. The associative–propositional evaluation model: theory, evidence, and open questions. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 59–127 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Evaluative conditioning from the perspective of the associative-propositional evaluation model. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13, e28024 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Operating principles versus operating conditions in the distinction between associative and propositional processes. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 207–208 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: conceptual, empirical, and metatheoretical issues: reply to Albarracín, Hart, and McCulloch (2006), Kruglanski and Dechesne (2006), and Petty and Briñol (2006). Psychol. Bull. 132, 745–750 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gawronski, B., Brannon, S. M. & Bodenhausen, G. V. in Reflective And Impulsive Determinants Of Human Behavior (eds Deutsch, R., Gawronski, B. & Hofmann, W.) 103–118 (Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2017).

  44. Jones, C. R., Olson, M. A. & Fazio, R. H. Evaluative conditioning: the “how” question. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43, 205–255 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. March, D. S., Olson, M. A. & Fazio, R. H. The implicit misattribution model of evaluative conditioning. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13, e27574 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hütter, M. & Sweldens, S. Implicit misattribution of evaluative responses: contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning requires simultaneous stimulus presentations. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 142, 638–643 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Fazio, R. H. & Olson, M. A. in Dual-Process Theories Of The Social Mind (eds Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B. & Trope, Y.) 155–171 (Guilford, 2014).

  48. Mierop, A., Hütter, M., Stahl, C. & Corneille, O. Does attitude acquisition in evaluative conditioning without explicit CS-US memory reflect implicit misattribution of affect? Cogn. Emot. 33, 173–184 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Stahl, C. & Heycke, T. Evaluative conditioning with simultaneous and sequential pairings under incidental and intentional learning conditions. Soc. Cogn. 34, 382–412 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. De Houwer, J. in Dual-Process Theories Of The Social Mind (eds Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B. & Trope, Y.) 530–541 (Guilford, 2014).

  51. De Houwer, J. Propositional models of evaluative conditioning. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13, e28046 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hughes, S., De Houwer, J. & Perugini, M. Expanding the boundaries of evaluative learning research: how intersecting regularities shape our likes and dislikes. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 731–754 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Zanon, R., De Houwer, J. & Gast, A. Context effects in evaluative conditioning of implicit evaluations. Learn. Motiv. 43, 155–165 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. De Houwer, J. Using the implicit association test does not rule out an impact of conscious propositional knowledge on evaluative conditioning. Learn. Motiv. 37, 176–187 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Houwer, J. D. A propositional model of implicit evaluation. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 8, 342–353 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gast, A. & De Houwer, J. Evaluative conditioning without directly experienced pairings of the conditioned and the unconditioned stimuli. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 65, 1657–1674 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hütter, M. & De Houwer, J. Examining the contributions of memory-dependent and memory-independent components to evaluative conditioning via instructions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 71, 49–58 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hu, X., Gawronski, B. & Balas, R. Propositional versus dual-process accounts of evaluative conditioning. II. The effectiveness of counter-conditioning and counter-instructions in changing implicit and explicit evaluations. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 8, 858–866 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Aust, F., Haaf, J. M. & Stahl, C. A memory-based judgment account of expectancy-liking dissociations in evaluative conditioning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 45, 417–439 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stahl, C., Haaf, J. & Corneille, O. Subliminal evaluative conditioning? Above-chance CS identification may be necessary and insufficient for attitude learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 1107–1131 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Luck, C. C. & Lipp, O. V. Relapse of evaluative learning — evidence for reinstatement, renewal, but not spontaneous recovery, of extinguished evaluative learning in a picture–picture evaluative conditioning paradigm. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 46, 1178–1206 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Baeyens, F., Crombez, G., Van den Bergh, O. & Eelen, P. Once in contact always in contact: evaluative conditioning is resistant to extinction. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 10, 179–199 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hermans, D., Vansteenwegen, D., Crombez, G., Baeyens, F. & Eelen, P. Expectancy-learning and evaluative learning in human classical conditioning: affective priming as an indirect and unobtrusive measure of conditioned stimulus valence. Behav. Res. Ther. 40, 217–234 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Gawronski, B., Gast, A. & De Houwer, J. Is evaluative conditioning really resistant to extinction? Evidence for changes in evaluative judgements without changes in evaluative representations. Cogn. Emot. 29, 816–830 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gast, A. A declarative memory model of evaluative conditioning. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13, e28590 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Gawronski, B. & Brannon, S. M. Attitudinal effects of stimulus co-occurrence and stimulus relations: range and limits of intentional control. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 47, 1654–1667 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Förderer, S. & Unkelbach, C. Hating the cute kitten or loving the aggressive pit-bull: EC effects depend on CS-US relations. Cogn. Emot. 26, 534–540 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Heycke, T. & Gawronski, B. Co-occurrence and relational information in evaluative learning: a multinomial modeling approach. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149, 104–124 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kukken, N., Hütter, M. & Holland, R. W. Are there two independent evaluative conditioning effects in relational paradigms? Dissociating the effects of CS-US pairings and their meaning. Cogn. Emot. 34, 170–187 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Moran, T., Bar-Anan, Y. & Nosek, B. A. The assimilative effect of co-occurrence on evaluation above and beyond the effect of relational qualifiers. Soc. Cogn. 34, 435–461 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Fan, X., Bodenhausen, G. V. & Lee, A. Y. Acquiring favorable attitudes based on aversive affective cues: examining the spontaneity and efficiency of propositional evaluative conditioning. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 95, 104139 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Hu, X., Gawronski, B. & Balas, R. Propositional versus dual-process accounts of evaluative conditioning: I. The effects of co-occurrence and relational information on implicit and explicit evaluations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 17–32 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Batchelder, W. H. & Riefer, D. M. Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6, 57–86 (1999).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hütter, M. & Klauer, K. C. Applying processing trees in social psychology. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 27, 116–159 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Jacoby, L. L. A process dissociation framework: separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. J. Mem. Lang. 30, 513–541 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Calanchini, J., Rivers, A. M., Klauer, K. C. & Sherman, J. W. Multinomial processing trees as theoretical bridges between cognitive and social psychology. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 69, 39–65 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Gawronski, B., Balas, R. & Creighton, L. A. Can the formation of conditioned attitudes be intentionally controlled? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40, 419–432 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Hütter, M. & Sweldens, S. Dissociating controllable and uncontrollable effects of affective stimuli on attitudes and consumption. J. Consum. Res. 45, 320–349 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Klauer, K. C., Dittrich, K., Scholtes, C. & Voss, A. The invariance assumption in process-dissociation models: an evaluation across three domains. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144, 198–221 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Corneille, O., Mierop, A., Stahl, C. & Hütter, M. Evidence suggestive of uncontrollable attitude acquisition replicates in an instructions-based evaluative conditioning paradigm: implications for associative attitude acquisition. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 85, 103841 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V. in Dual-Process Theories Of The Social Mind (eds Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B. & Trope, Y.) 188–203 (Guilford, 2014).

  82. Brainerd, C. J. & Reyna, V. F. Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11, 164–169 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Walther, E., Gawronski, B., Blank, H. & Langer, T. Changing likes and dislikes through the back door: the US-revaluation effect. Cogn. Emot. 23, 889–917 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Kim, J. C., Sweldens, S. & Hütter, M. The symmetric nature of evaluative memory associations: equal effectiveness of forward versus backward evaluative conditioning. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7, 61–68 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Schwarz, N. Attitude construction: evaluation in context. Soc. Cogn. 25, 638–656 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Payne, B. K., Burkley, M. A. & Stokes, M. B. Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 16–31 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Bar-Anan, Y. & Amzaleg-David, E. The effect of evaluation on co-occurrence memory judgement. Cogn. Emot. 28, 1030–1046 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Bar-Anan, Y., De Houwer, J. & Nosek, B. A. Evaluative conditioning and conscious knowledge of contingencies: a correlational investigation with large samples. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 2313–2335 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Hütter, M., Sweldens, S., Stahl, C., Unkelbach, C. & Klauer, K. C. Dissociating contingency awareness and conditioned attitudes: evidence of contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141, 539–557 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. De Houwer, J. & Moors, A. in Theory And Explanation In Social Psychology. (eds Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. V.) 24–40 (Guilford, 2015).

  91. Marr, D. Vision: A Computational Investigation Into The Human Representation And Processing Of Visual Information (W. H. Freeman, 1982).

  92. Fiedler, K. From intrapsychic to ecological theories in social psychology: outlines of a functional theory approach. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 657–670 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Glaser, T. & Kuchenbrandt, D. Generalization effects in evaluative conditioning: evidence for attitude transfer effects from single exemplars to social categories. Front. Psychol. 8, 103 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Hütter, M., Kutzner, F. & Fiedler, K. What is learned from repeated pairings? On the scope and generalizability of evaluative conditioning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 631–643 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. De Houwer, J. Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 202–209 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Fiedler, K. What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 46–61 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Platt, J. R. Strong inference: certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science 146, 347–353 (1964).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 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. 30, 133–142 (1992).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Razran, G. The conditioned evocation of attitudes (cognitive conditioning?). J. Exp. Psychol. 48, 278–282 (1954).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. De Houwer, J. A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. Span. J. Psychol. 10, 230–241 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Page, M. M. Demand characteristics and the classical conditioning of attitudes experiment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30, 468–476 (1974).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Cronbach, L. J. Essentials Of Psychological Testing 3rd edn (Harper and Row, 1970).

  103. Walther, E., Halbeisen, G. & Blask, K. What you feel is what you see: a binding perspective on evaluative conditioning. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 13, e27551 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Dayan, P. & Niv, Y. Reinforcement learning: the good, the bad and the ugly. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 18, 185–196 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Dayan, P. & Berridge, K. C. Model-based and model-free Pavlovian reward learning: revaluation, revision, and revelation. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 14, 473–492 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Gershman, S. J. & Daw, N. D. Reinforcement learning and episodic memory in humans and animals: an integrative framework. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68, 101–128 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning: it’s not what you think it is. Am. Psychol. 43, 151–160 (1988).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Robinson, M. J. & Berridge, K. C. Instant transformation of learned repulsion into motivational “wanting”. Curr. Biol. 23, 282–289 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Daw, N. D., Niv, Y. & Dayan, P. Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1704–1711 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Otto, A. R., Gershman, S. J., Markman, A. B. & Daw, N. D. The curse of planning: dissecting multiple reinforcement-learning systems by taxing the central executive. Psychol. Sci. 24, 751–761 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Gershman, S. J., Markman, A. B. & Otto, A. R. Retrospective revaluation in sequential decision making: a tale of two systems. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 182–194 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Kurdi, B., Gershman, S. J. & Banaji, M. R. Model-free and model-based learning processes in the updating of explicit and implicit evaluations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 116, 6035–6044 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Heisenberg grant (HU 1978/7-1) from the German Research Foundation. The author thanks K. Fiedler, B. Gawronski, J. de Houwer, Z. Niese and K. Reichmann for valuable comments on previous versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Mandy Hütter

Authors
  1. Mandy Hütter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mandy Hütter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks David Melnikoff and the other, anonymous, reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hütter, M. An integrative review of dual- and single-process accounts of evaluative conditioning. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 640–653 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00102-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00102-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing