IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0204855.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the impact of distance as a contextual cue in evaluative conditioning

Author

Listed:
  • Sean Hughes
  • Simone Mattavelli
  • Jan De Houwer

Abstract

According to a symbolic perspective on EC, pairings constitute a relational contextual cue in the environment. It is the relationship between stimuli as cued by the pairing (i.e., pairings = similar) that determines the observed change in liking. Across five pre-registered studies (N = 747) we manipulated the absolute or relative distance between different pairs of conditioned (CS) and unconditioned stimuli (US) under the assumption that this would influence the type of relation that the pairings would cue (i.e., close = similar; far = different). In all five studies we obtained repeated and strong evidence that stimulus pairings led to changes in implicit and explicit evaluations. Although we found that these effects were moderated by absolute distance manipulations, evidence did not emerge indicating that those same effects were moderated by relative distance manipulations. These findings fail to provide strong support for a symbolic perspective on EC. We discuss the implications of our findings as well as future research in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean Hughes & Simone Mattavelli & Jan De Houwer, 2018. "Examining the impact of distance as a contextual cue in evaluative conditioning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204855
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204855
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204855&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0204855?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204855. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.