Is Evaluative Conditioning Moderated by Big Five Personality Traits?

Abstract

Evaluative conditioning (EC), a change in liking of a stimulus due to its paired presentation with a positive or negative stimulus, is a key concept in attitude formation. The present article examines to what extent EC effects are moderated by Big Five personality. For this purpose, 567 participants completed an EC procedure and the Big Five Inventory. People high on neuroticism and agreeableness showed stronger EC effects than people low on those personality traits. In conclusion, attitude formation via EC depends in part on Big Five personality. This novel insight has important ramifications for EC research and personality research. As to EC research, the moderation by neuroticism suggests that EC effects intensify with an increased focus on valent stimuli. As to personality research, our findings reinforce the fundamental nature of the Big Five because they are evidentially able to moderate such basic learning phenomena as EC.

Keywords

evaluative conditioning attitudes Big Five personality neuroticism

Attitudes are acquired and modified in the course of life. One very prominent way of how attitudes are acquired is by evaluative conditioning (EC). EC refers to a change in liking toward a (typically neutral) stimulus after that stimulus has been paired with a positive or negative stimulus (De Houwer, 2007; Gast, Gawronski, & De Houwer, 2012). EC effects are moderated by a number of factors, such as the number of pairings or stimulus modality (Hofmann, De Houwer, Perugini, Baeyens, & Crombez, 2010). Personality traits, however, have not yet been systematically examined as moderators of EC effects. The present research is a first attempt to close that gap in the literature. Specifically, we conducted a high-powered study on the role of the Big Five personality traits (John & Srivastava, 1999) in EC.

EC

According to EC, attitudes toward an object are affected by the valence of co-occurring stimuli. For example, the picture of a person’s face would receive more positive evaluations, due to pairing this picture with the picture of a cute puppy. By the same token, the same portrait picture would receive more negative evaluations, due to pairing this picture with the picture of a frightening beast. Theoretically speaking, a conditioned stimulus (CS; here, portrait picture) subjectively changes its valence due to its pairing with an unconditioned stimulus (US; here, the cute puppy or the beast). EC is a very basic and robust cognitive phenomenon. As a case in point, a meta-analysis across 214 studies yielded an overall effect of moderate size, d = .52 (Hofmann et al., 2010). Besides the significant overall effect, Hofmann et al. also reported a series of significant moderators. Given that EC research is mainly rooted in experimental psychology, it is not surprising that the vast majority of those moderators were situated at the stimulus level (e.g., number of repetitions), the measurement level (e.g., direct vs. indirect measures), and the contextual level (e.g., assimilate vs. contrast pairings; Fiedler & Unkelbach, 2011). Moderators situated at the person level (i.e., personality moderators), by contrast, have not received much attention in EC research.

Are EC Effects Moderated by Big Five Personality?

From the very beginnings of personality psychology, researchers hypothesized that some individuals are more easily conditioned than others. In other words, personality psychologists assumed that individuals differ in their “conditionability.” Theoretically, conditionability has been considered a correlate of personality traits (e.g., Taylor, 1951) or even a central element in classic personality models (e.g., Eysenck, 1967; Gray, 1981). Hence, a great deal of research in the last century has examined the conditionability of individuals within various forms of classical conditioning. However, that previous research produced mixed results, and an integration of the diverse findings turned out to be difficult (e.g., Matthews & Gilliland, 1999; Pineles, Vogt, & Orr, 2009). Importantly, previous research on personality and conditioning was restricted to classical conditioning (Pavlov, 1927) which typically involves the conditioning of reactions of the autonomous nervous system with biologically relevant USs. It is therefore an open question to what extent these findings would also pertain to EC which involves the transfer of evaluations. Indeed, EC differs from classical conditioning in several ways (e.g., Hofmann et al. 2010; Walther, 2002), and it is plausible that some moderators are particularly relevant for EC. Pertinent to the present research question, EC effects increase if experimental manipulations heighten people’s focus on evaluative content (Gast & Rothermund, 2011; Hütter & De Houwer, 2017). Put differently, the strength of EC effects varies as a function of situationally (i.e., experimentally) induced differences in valence focus. Valence focus, however, does not only differ due to situational factors. Specifically, theory suggests that people also vary habitually in their valence focus as a function of their personality. Next, we will describe how valence focus differs between people as a function of Big Five personality (John & Srivastava, 1999). On that basis, we will, then, derive hypotheses on the moderating role of the Big Five for EC effects.

EC and Big Five Personality

Big Five personality is the most prominent and most widely used personality taxonomy to date (John & Srivastava, 1999). The Big Five include openness (to experience), conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Of these, neuroticism is arguably the best candidate moderator of EC effects. Different theoretical perspectives indicate that neuroticism is related to a valence focus. For once, one prominent view of neuroticism states that a heightened focus on negative stimuli is a hallmark feature of neurotic individuals (Eysenck, 1967; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; also see Gray, 1981). In other words, neurotic individuals are chronically high on negative valence focus. As a result, then, EC effects should be particularly strong for neurotic individuals, but only if the US is negative. By contrast, another prominent view of neuroticism states that neurotic people possess a heightened focus on all kinds of valent stimuli—negative and positive (Larsen & Diener, 1987; see also Bachorowski & Braaten, 1994). In other words, neurotic individuals are chronically high on valence focus in general. As a result, EC effects should be particularly strong for neurotic individuals and this should be the case independent of whether the US is negative or positive.

Notably, in the context of classical conditioning, some evidence suggests conditionability is higher among neurotic (vs. nonneurotic) individuals (Spence & Spence, 1964). However, in numerous other classical conditioning studies, conditionability did not differ significantly between neurotic and nonneurotic individuals (e.g., Franks, 1956; Fredrikson & Georgiades, 1992; Spence & Taylor, 1953). The divergent findings in the classical conditioning literature may be partly due to low statistical power. However, there is also a substantive explanation for these divergent findings: Valence focus should play a much less important role in classical conditioning than in EC. Thus, neurotic people—due to their stronger valence focus—may be particularly easily conditioned via EC but not via classical conditioning. We therefore hypothesize that EC effects are stronger among neurotic (vs. nonneurotic) individuals.

In addition to neuroticism, Eysenck (1994) considered introversion as a moderator of conditionability. Eysenck assumed that introverts exhibit stronger physiological reactions to external stimuli and, therefore, he hypothesized stronger conditionability for introverts. His hypothesis received some support in eyeblink conditioning paradigms (Levey & Martin, 1981). Other learning experiments, however, failed to provide consistent support, or even found higher conditionability among extraverts (Gupta & Shukla, 1989). In line with the latter finding, evidence has accumulated that extraverts are more sensitive toward rewarding stimuli (e.g., Canli, Sivers, Whitfield, Gotlib, & Gabrieli, 2002; Lucas & Baird, 2004; Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000). Given these results, one may even expect a higher valence focus among extraverts, at least for positive USs (Gray, 1991). Overall, there exists contradictory theory and contradictory evidence on the role of extraaversion in conditioning. Hence, it is difficult to make any directed predictions regarding the role of extraversion for EC.

Finally, there is little theoretical reason to believe that valence focus is linked to openness to experience, agreeableness, or conscientiousness (but see Corr, DeYoung, & McNaughton, 2013). We, therefore, explore the role of these personality traits for EC without making any a priori predictions.

Overview of the Present Research

The present research is the first to test whether EC is moderated by Big Five personality. In the present research, we used a well-established EC paradigm (Hütter, Sweldens, Stahl, Unkelbach, & Klauer, 2012) and administered the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1998) thereafter. Critically, the detection of personality differences requires larger sample sizes than the ones typically used in EC studies (in Hofmann et al.’s [2010] meta-analysis of 214 studies, the mean sample size was 43 participants). At the same time, the most widely used EC paradigms are difficult to realize as online studies because they consist of a passive learning task and require participants to pay attention to more than 100 trials of controlled stimulus presentations. In order to ensure sufficient sample size without giving up the controlled laboratory conditions of typical EC research, we adopted a multistudy approach. That is, we conducted a series of five independent experimental studies. Each of those studies was likely underpowered, but when pooled together, they reached ample power and precision (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013). Thus, the main text does not report the results of each study individually (for completeness reasons, the results of each individual study can be found in Online Supplemental Material S1) but reports the pooled results from an integrative data analysis (Curran & Hussong, 2009; see below for more information on this analysis).

Method

Participants and Design

Five hundred and seventy-five students (188 male, M _age = 22.82, SD _age = 5.17) from the University of Mannheim, the University of Heidelberg, and the School of Applied Science Ludwigshafen participated in one of the five independent laboratory studies. The factor “US valence (positive vs. negative)” varied within participants. Big Five personality was assessed as a between-participant measure. Eight participants were excluded because they did not complete the Big Five measure, resulting in a final sample of 567 participants.

Materials and Procedure

All materials were presented on a computer screen. The EC paradigm was adopted from Hütter et al. (2012, experiment set 2). It consisted of three phases, an initial CS evaluation phase, a conditioning phase, and a postconditioning CS evaluation phase. In the initial CS evaluation phase, participants were exposed to 120 unknown gray scale photographs of faces, one face at a time. For each picture, participants had to indicate a spontaneous evaluation by moving a slider on a 201-point bar with anchors labeled “unpleasant” and “pleasant,” respectively. In the conditioning phase, 24 faces, which were previously rated as neutral (i.e., the ones closest to the scale midpoint), served as CSs and were randomly assigned to a positive or a negative US. USs were taken from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2005). In the positive (negative) valence condition, 12 CSs were paired with an IAPS picture drawn from a pool of 50 positive (negative) pictures. Each of the resulting 24 CS–US pairings was presented 5 times. The resulting 120 trials were presented in random order, with a stimulus presentation of 2,000 ms and a 1,000 ms intertrial interval. Finally, in the postconditioning CS evaluation phase, participants were asked to evaluate the CSs again. After the EC paradigm, participants completed a German version of the Big Five Inventory (Lang, Lüdtke, & Asendorpf, 2001), implemented in SoSciSurvey Software (Leiner, 2014). At the end of the experiment, participants provided demographic information and were thanked, debriefed, and compensated (with either credit points or a monetary reward).

Procedural Variations

With one exception, the procedure for Studies 2 and 3 was the same as the one described above (Study 1): CSs were not selected based on participants’ preratings but randomly drawn from the CS stimulus pool (thereby increasing the variance of CS valence). Furthermore, an implicit attitude measure (an evaluative priming task; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995) was assessed in Study 3 right after the conditioning phase.¹ The procedure of Study 4 differed from Study 1 in that CSs were pronounceable nonwords rather than facial photographs.

Results

As shown in Table 1, a preliminary analysis on the pooled data indicated that all Big Five traits were internally consistent, Cronbach’s α (CR-αs) ≥ .80, and showed weak to moderate correlations among each other, .05 < |rs| < .31.

Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Big Five Personality Traits.

N = 576 Big Five Trait

O C E A N

Openness (O) M = 3.53 .045 .126 .108 .089

SD = .64 p = .289 p = .003 p = .010 p = .035

CR-α = .81

Conscientiousness (C) M = 3.59 .142 .162 −.166

SD = .65 p = .001 p < .001 p < .001

CR-α = .85

Extraversion (E) M = 3.50 .136 −.296

SD = .77 p = .001 p < .001

CR-α = .84

Agreeableness (A) M = 3.62 −.307

SD = .58 p < .001

CR-α = .80

Neuroticism (N) M = 2.88

SD = .72

CR-α = .85

Note. Correlations and corresponding p values. The diagonal contains descriptive statistics for the Big Five traits (scales ranged from 1 to 7): M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CR-α = Cronbach’s α.

Stimuli (Level 1) were nested in participants (Level 2). Thus, we tested for EC effects by means of multilevel mixed modeling (e.g., Snijders & Bosker, 2012), using R’s (Version 3.3.2) lme4 package (Version 1.1-13; Bates, Mächler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015). We specified random intercepts and slopes at the stimulus level, using the restricted maximum likelihood method. Following Curran and Hussong’s (2009) Integrative Data Analysis recommendations, we refrained from modeling “study” as a third level because that third level would only contain five units and such a low number of higher level units is insufficient for multilevel mixed modeling (Maas & Hox, 2005). Instead, we accounted for the nestedness of participants in studies by entering four dummy variables (for Studies 2–5) at Level 2 (Curran & Hussong, 2009; Michela, 1990). Continuous variables were z-standardized prior to analyses. As a result, regression weights in our regression analyses can be interpreted as standardized weights (zPE; Snijder & Bosker, 2012).

Main Analyses

In Model 1, CS postevaluations (i.e., the CS evaluations after the conditioning phase; CS-POST) served as the criterion and were predicted by US valence (negative = −1, positive = 1), controlling for initial CS evaluations (CS-PRE). In doing so, the EC effect is statistically defined as the main effect of US valence on CS-POST evaluations (see Online Supplemental Material S2 for equations).

Table 2 contains regression weights and Ward-estimated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the fixed effects. As shown in Table 2 (left column), there was a clear EC effect: US valence predicted CS-POST evaluations, zPE = .134, 95% CI [.114, .154]. This EC effect occurred over and above the effect of CS-PRE evaluations on CS-POST evaluations, zPE = .529, 95% CI [.507, .551]. The latter indicates that participants’ evaluations were consistent over time.

Table 2.
Regression Coefficients for Fixed Effects.

Criterion: CS-POST Model 1 Model 2

zPE 95% CI zPE 95% CI

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Intercept .051 .004 .097 .051 .003 .099

US valence (VAL) .134 .114 .154 .136 .115 .156

Openness (O) .009 −.015 .033

Conscientiousness (C) −.011 −.035 .014

Extraversion (E) .003 −.023 .029

Agreeableness (A) .005 −.020 .030

Neuroticism (N) .002 −.024 .029

VAL × O .001 −.019 .021

VAL × C .016 −.004 .036

VAL × E .017 −.004 .038

VAL × A .027 .006 .048

VAL × N .026 .004 .048

CS-PRE .529 .507 .551 .530 .508 .552

Study 2 −.011 −.080 .057 −.015 −.086 .056

Study 3 −.009 −.080 .062 −.008 −.081 .064

Study 4 −.018 −.094 .059 −.003 −.085 .079

Study 5 −.204 −.274 −.135 −.205 −.277 −.133

Note.“Unconditioned stimulus (US) valence” was effect coded (US positive = 1, US negative = −1). Big Five traits as well as conditioned stimulus ratings were z-standardized. zPE = standardized point estimates; 95% CIs = 95% confidence intervals; CS-POST = CS postevaluations.

As a next step, we compared the fit of two models in order to test for individual differences in the EC effect. The first model was our Model 1, which was a full random slope model and, thus, allowed for individual differences in the EC effect. The second model was a modified version of Model 1, in which we fixed the slope of US valence on CS-POST evaluations to equality across participants. Thus, this modified version did not allow for individual differences in the EC effect. Model 1 fitted our data much better than the modified model, χ²(3) = 315.99, p < .001, Δ Akaike information criterion = 309.99. Thus, we found individuals differences in the strength of EC effects between our participants. Next, we tested whether these differences can be accounted for by Big Five personality.

In Model 2, the Big Five and their interactions with US valence were added to Model 1 predictors. As shown in Table 2 (right column), Model 2 results revealed that US valence interacted with two of the Big Five. Confirming our hypothesis, US valence interacted with neuroticism, zPE = .026, 95% CI [.004, .048]. As predicted, conditionability was increased among neurotic individuals. To examine further the nature of this cross-level interaction, we calculated simple slopes of neuroticism on CS evaluations for each of the US conditions. For negative USs, neuroticism was associated with more negative CS evaluations, zPE = −.024, 95% CI [−.060, .012]. For positive USs, in contrast, neuroticism was associated with more positive CS evaluations, zPE = .028, 95% CI [−.004, .061]. Although neither slope reached statistical significance, the coefficients indicate that the moderating effect of neuroticism on the EC effect is not solely driven by negative USs. In other words, neurotic individuals did not show selective sensitivity for negative USs, a finding that poses a challenge to Eysenck’s (1967) classic conceptualization of neuroticism. However, the finding fits with Larsen and Diener’s (1987) conceptualization of neuroticism, according to which neurotic individuals are particularly sensitive toward valenced stimuli in general.

Beyond neuroticism, US valence interacted with agreeableness, indicating higher conditionability for agreeable (vs. disagreeable) individuals, zPE = .027, 95% CI [.006, .048]. Agreeableness was associated with more negative CS evaluations for negative USs, zPE = −.022, 95% CI [−.057, −.013]. Agreeableness was also associated with more favorable evaluations for positive USs, zPE = .032, 95% CI [.001, .064]. Lastly, interactions involving extraversion, zPE = .017, 95% CI [−.004, .038], openness for experience, zPE = −.007, 95% CI [−.031, .016], and conscientiousness, zPE = .016, 95% CI [−.004, .036], did not reach significance.²

Post Hoc Analysis

The Big Five are particularly broad personality factors (John & Srivastava, 1999). The Big Five factors can be decomposed into more narrow personality facets (Costa & McCrea, 1995). Our Big Five measure, the Big Five Inventory, can be decomposed in 10 personality facets, 2 facets per factor (Soto & John, 2009). For a facet-level analysis, we applied Model 2 but included the 10 personality facets (and their interactions with US valence) instead of the 5 personality factors (see Table S3.1 in Online Supplemental Material S3).

Most relevant for our hypotheses, anxiety (one of the neuroticism facets) moderated the EC effect, zPE = .025, 95% CI [.000, .049], whereas depression (the other neuroticism facet) did not moderate the EC effect, zPE = −.003, 95% CI [−.030, .022]. This result further backs our valence sensitivity explanation for why neuroticism moderates the EC effect. This is so, because anxiety—not depression—is typically described as the reason for why neurotic individuals possess a heightened sensitivity for valenced stimuli (Lissek et al., 2005).

Additionally, Model 3 revealed that none of the two agreeableness facets independently moderated the EC effect, zPE = .013, 95% CI [−.011, .037] (for the altruism facet) and zPE = .007, 95% CI [−.016, .031] (for the compliance facet). This finding suggests that the shared variance between altruism and compliance, rather than their unique variances, explains why agreeableness moderates the EC effect.

Discussion

In the present study, we examined whether EC differs between people as a function of Big Five personality. For this purpose, participants completed an EC procedure and the Big Five Inventory. Our findings indicate that EC effects were significantly moderated by two of the Big Five—neuroticism and agreeableness.

Neuroticism

We had formulated a straightforward hypothesis for neuroticism. Specifically, we predicted that EC effects will be augmented among neurotic individuals. We had this prediction because neurotic individuals possess a particularly strong chronic valence focus (Eysenck, 1967; Larsen & Diener, 1987), and prior research found that (experimentally induced) valence focus increases EC effects (Gast & Rothermund, 2011; Hütter & De Houwer, 2017). Our results confirmed our predictions; EC effects were particularly strong among neurotic individuals. Moreover, a facet-level analysis suggested that neuroticism’s anxiety facet—but not its depression facet—explained why neurotic individuals exhibited a pronounced EC effect. This facet-level finding does not only complement findings from the fear-conditioning literature (Lissek et al., 2005). It also corroborates our valence focus explanation because anxious individuals are more vigilant for valent external stimuli, while depressed individuals are more focused on inner states (e.g., Armstrong & Olatunji, 2012).

Additionally, we tested whether neuroticism amplifies EC effects of negative USs only—Eysenck’s (1967) prediction—or whether neuroticism amplifies EC effects of negative and positive USs alike—Larsen and Diener’s (1987) prediction. Our data supported the latter possibility and, thus, favored Larsen and Diener’s (1987) view (see also Bachorowksi & Braaten, 1994) at the expense of Eysenck’s (1967) classic view.

Agreeableness

Although unpredicted, we also found stronger EC effects for agreeable (vs. disagreeable) individuals. In hindsight, this finding could be explained by the overlap between disagreeableness and psychopathy (e.g., Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, & De Clercq, 2009; Stead & Fekken, 2014). Pertinent to EC, highly psychopathic individuals show deviant responses to emotional stimuli (e.g., Hoff, Beneventi, Galta, & Wik, 2009; Kiehl et al., 2001), including weaker emotional responses and even abnormal reactions. Thus, it is plausible that our (emotion arousing) USs produced weaker emotional responses in disagreeable participants. Perhaps, some USs even evoked paradoxical reactions (e.g., disagreeable persons dislike cute puppies). Thus, disagreeable individuals may show weaker EC effects because of a different reaction to the USs.

As an alternative explanation, the agreeableness moderation may simply reflect a higher degree of compliance to the experimental task with increasing agreeableness. Specifically, it may be the case that agreeable participants are more likely to follow the experimenter’s instructions and, thus, pay more attention to the CS–US pairings. Our facet-level analyses, however, speak against this alternative explanation. Specifically, we found that agreeableness’s compliance facet did not drive our agreeableness results. Likewise, it is unlikely that social desirability is the main driver of our effects because participants completed the study under anonymous conditions, rendering socially desirable responding unlikely (Gebauer et al., 2017; Paulhus, 1984).

Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness

As described in the Introduction, theories differ regarding predictions for extraversion. While Eysenck (1967) hypothesized increased conditionability for introverts, Gray (1991) hypothesized increased conditionability for extraverts. Our study only revealed a nonsignificant trend. If anything, that trend lends support to the notion that conditionability is higher among extraverts. Finally, openness and conscientiousness did not moderate our EC effects.

Limitations and Future Directions

In support of our hypothesis, neurotic (vs. nonneurotic) individuals showed stronger EC effects. However, how meaningful is this effect? To answer this question, it is helpful to compare the size of the moderation effect with the size of the overall EC effect (Figure 1). The moderation effect was about one fifth the size of the overall EC effect. Thus, EC effects among very neurotic individuals (+2SD) are more than twice as high as EC effects among very nonneurotic individuals (+2SD). Nonetheless, it should be stated that the absolute size of the interaction effect was small.³ Future research needs to assure the replicability of the finding.

Figure 1.
Evaluative conditioning (EC) effects as a function of different levels of neuroticism. Standardized regression weights (z PE) with 95% confidence intervals for unconditioned stimulus valence at different levels of neuroticism. N = neuroticism; SD = standard deviation(s).

The present article constitutes a foray into Big Five personality’s role for EC. Additionally, our data allowed us to test some more specific questions. First and foremost, we were in the position to test whether neuroticism moderates EC effects only when USs are negative—corresponding to Eysenck’s (1967) view of neuroticism—or whether neuroticism moderates EC effects when USs are positive and negative—corresponding to Larsen and Diener’s (1987) view of neuroticism. Our results favored Larsen and Diener’s view over Eysenck’s view. However, one could think of more telling tests of the two views. Perhaps the most telling test would be a replication of our study that additionally includes neutral control USs. That way one could directly rule out that our EC procedure may have underestimated effects of negative USs and overestimated effects of positive USs (Landwehr, Golla, & Reber, 2017).

Future research should also address the mechanisms by which personality traits moderate EC effects. We have assumed that valence focus is a key mechanism of our neuroticism results. To probe this more directly, it would be interesting to test whether neuroticism increases attention toward USs and whether this increased attention, in turn, boosts memory for the CS-US pairings. Therefore, future research would profit from using direct measures of attention (e.g., eye gaze measures) or indirect measures of attention such as memory for CS-US pairings (e.g., Hütter et al., 2012). Additionally, neurotic versus nonneurotic individuals (and also agreeable vs. disagreeable individuals) may experience different emotional responses to valent USs (cf. Aluja, Blanch, Blanco, & Balada, 2015). Therefore, future research could assess neurotic versus nonneurotic individuals (and agreeable vs. disagreeable individuals) reactions toward valenced stimuli (e.g., IAPS pictures; Lang et al., 1999) and model those reactions as mechanisms explaining the role of Big Five personality for EC.

Conclusion

The present research helps to close the gap between two very prominent research domains: EC and Big Five personality. Research on EC has strongly focused on situational moderators of EC effects at the neglect of individual differences. The present findings demonstrate that individuals differ in their conditionability of attitudes via EC and that Big Five personality can help to explain those differences. First, and in line with classic theorizing in personality psychology, EC effects were amplified among neurotic individuals. Second, EC effects were also amplified among agreeable individuals. These findings possess ramifications for our understanding of EC and for our understanding of Big Five personality: The findings indicate that interindividual variation in EC can be explained by personality traits associated with valence sensitivity. At the same time, the findings showcase the power of Big Five personality to moderate a fundamental and far-reaching cognitive phenomenon, namely EC.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, SPPS740193_suppl_mat - Is Evaluative Conditioning Moderated by Big Five Personality Traits?

Supplemental Material, SPPS740193_suppl_mat for Is Evaluative Conditioning Moderated by Big Five Personality Traits? by Tobias Vogel, Mandy Hütter, and Jochen E. Gebauer in Social Psychological and Personality Science

N = 576	Big Five Trait
Openness (O)	M = 3.53	.045	.126	.108	.089
SD = .64	p = .289	p = .003	p = .010	p = .035
CR-α = .81
Conscientiousness (C)		M = 3.59	.142	.162	−.166
	SD = .65	p = .001	p < .001	p < .001
	CR-α = .85
Extraversion (E)			M = 3.50	.136	−.296
		SD = .77	p = .001	p < .001
		CR-α = .84
Agreeableness (A)				M = 3.62	−.307
			SD = .58	p < .001
			CR-α = .80
Neuroticism (N)					M = 2.88
				SD = .72
				CR-α = .85

Criterion: CS-POST	Model 1	Model 2
Intercept	.051	.004	.097	.051	.003	.099
US valence (VAL)	.134	.114	.154	.136	.115	.156
Openness (O)				.009	−.015	.033
Conscientiousness (C)				−.011	−.035	.014
Extraversion (E)				.003	−.023	.029
Agreeableness (A)				.005	−.020	.030
Neuroticism (N)				.002	−.024	.029
VAL × O				.001	−.019	.021
VAL × C				.016	−.004	.036
VAL × E				.017	−.004	.038
VAL × A				.027	.006	.048
VAL × N				.026	.004	.048
CS-PRE	.529	.507	.551	.530	.508	.552
Study 2	−.011	−.080	.057	−.015	−.086	.056
Study 3	−.009	−.080	.062	−.008	−.081	.064
Study 4	−.018	−.094	.059	−.003	−.085	.079
Study 5	−.204	−.274	−.135	−.205	−.277	−.133

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Alexander Unger and Peter Samuel Arslan for coordinating data collection in Ludwigshafen and Heidelberg. They also thank Kira Borgdorf, Moritz Ingendahl, Daniel Tilch, Sophie Scharf, and Tilman Wörtz for running the studies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present research was supported by an Emmy Noether grant awarded to Mandy Hütter (HU 1978/ 4-1).

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

References

Aluja

Blanch

Blanco

Balada

(2015). Affective modulation of the startle reflex and the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of personality: The role of sensitivity to reward. Physiology & Behavior, 138, 332–339. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.09.009

Armstrong

Olatunji

B. O.

(2012). Eye tracking of attention in the affective disorders: A meta-analytic review and synthesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 704–723. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.004

Bachorowski

J. A.

Braaten

E. B.

(1994). Emotional intensity: Measurement and theoretical implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 191–199. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90025-6

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Canli

Sivers

Whitfield

S. L.

Gotlib

I. H.

Gabrieli

J. D. E.

(2002). Amygdala response to happy faces as a function of extraversion. Science, 296, 2191. doi:10.1126/science.1068749

Corr

P. J.

DeYoung

C. G.

McNaughton

(2013). Motivation and personality: A neuropsychological perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 158–175. doi:10.1111/spc3.12016

Costa

P. T.

Jr McCrae

R. R.

(1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2

Curran

P. J.

Hussong

A. M.

(2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100. doi:10.1037/a0015914

Decuyper

De Pauw

De Fruyt

De Bolle

De Clercq

B. J.

(2009). A meta-analysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PD- and FFM associations. European Journal Of Personality, 23, 531–565. doi:10.1002/per.729

10.

De Houwer

(2007). A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 230–241. doi:10.1017/S1138741600006491

11.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

12.

Eysenck

H. J

. (1994). Personality: Biological foundations. In Vernon

P. A.

Vernon

P. A.

(Eds.), The Neuropsychology of Individual Differences (pp. 151–207). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

13.

Eysenck

H. J.

Eysenck

M. W.

(1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. Boston, MA: Springer US.

14.

Fazio

R. H.

Jackson

J. R.

Dunton

B. C.

Williams

C. J.

(1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1013

15.

Fiedler

Unkelbach

(2011). Evaluative conditioning depends on higher order encoding processes. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 639–656. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.513497

16.

Franks

C. M.

(1956). Conditioning and personality: A study of normal and neurotic subjects. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 143–150. doi:10.1037/h0047250

17.

Fredrikson

Georgiades

(1992). Personality dimensions and classical conditioning of autonomic nervous system reactions. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1013–1020. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90134-B

18.

Gast

Gawronski

De Houwer

(2012). Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions. Learning and Motivation, 43, 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2012.06.004

19.

Gast

Rothermund

(2011). What you see is what will change: Evaluative conditioning effects depend on a focus on valence. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 89–110. doi:10.1080/02699931003696380

20.

Gebauer

J. E.

Bleidorn

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Lamb

M. E.

Potter

(2014). Cross-cultural variations in big five relationships with religiosity: A sociocultural motives perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 1064–1091. doi:10.1037/a0037683

21.

Gebauer

J. E.

Sedikides

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Bleidorn

Rentfrow

P. J.

Potter

Gosling

S. D.

(2017). The religiosity as social value hypothesis: A multi-method replication and extension across 65 countries and three levels of spatial aggregation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, e18–e39. doi:10.1037/pspp0000104

22.

Gray

J. A

. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s Theory of Personality. In Eysenck

H. J.

(Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246–276). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0_8

23.

Gray

J. A.

(1991). The psychology of fear and stress. Problems in the behavioural sciences (Vol. 5) Cambridge, New York, Port Chester: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Gupta

Shukla

A. P.

(1989). Verbal operant conditioning as a function of extraversion and reinforcement. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 39–44. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02302.x

25.

Hoff

Beneventi

Galta

Wik

(2009). Evidence of deviant emotional processing in psychopathy: A fMRI case study. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119, 857–878. doi:10.1080/00207450701590992

26.

Hofmann

Houwer

Perugini

Baeyens

Crombez

(2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 390–421. doi:10.1037/a0018916

27.

Hütter

De Houwer

(2017). Examining the contributions of memory-dependent and memory-independent components to evaluative conditioning via instructions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 49–58.

28.

Hütter

Sweldens

Stahl

Unkelbach

Klauer

K. C.

(2012). Dissociating contingency awareness and conditioned attitudes: Evidence of contingency-unaware evaluative conditioning. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 141, 539–557. doi:10.1037/a0026477

29.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1998). The Big Five Inventory: Studies of reliability and validity. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

30.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

31.

Kiehl

K. A.

Smith

A. M.

Hare

R. D.

Mendrek

Forster

B. B.

Brink

Liddle

P. F.

(2001). Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 677–684. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01222-7

32.

Landwehr

J. R.

Golla

Reber

(2017). Processing fluency: An inevitable side effect of evaluative conditioning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 124–128. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.004

33.

Lang

F. R.

Lüdtke

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2001). Testgüte und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen [Validity and psychometric equivalence of the German version of the Big Five Inventory in young, middle-aged and old adults]. Diagnostica, 47(3), 111–121. doi:10.1026//0012-1924.47.3.111

34.

Lang

P. J.

Bradley

M. M.

Cuthbert

B. N.

(2005). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and in- struction manual (Tech. Rep. A-6). Gainesville: University of Florida.

35.

Larsen

R. J.

Diener

(1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 1–39. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(87)90023-7

36.

Leiner

D. J.

(2014). SoSci Survey (Version 2.5.00-i) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.soscisurvey.de

37.

Levey

A. B.

Martin

(1981). Personality and conditioning. In Eysenck

H. J.

(Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 123–168). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-67783-0_5

38.

Lissek

Powers

A. S.

McClure

E. B.

Phelps

E. A.

Woldehawariat

Grillon

Pine

D. S.

(2005). Classical fear conditioning in the anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1391–1424. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.10.007

39.

Lucas

R. E.

Baird

B. M.

(2004). Extraversion and emotional reactivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 473–485. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.473

40.

Lucas

R. E.

Diener

Grob

Suh

E. M.

Shao

(2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452–468. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.452

41.

Maas

C. J. M.

Hox

J. J.

(2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86

42.

Matthews

Gilliland

(1999). The personality theories of H.J. Eysenck and J.A. Gray: A comparative review. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 583–626. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00158-5

43.

Michela

J. L.

(1990). Within-person correlational design and analysis. In Clark

C. H. M. S.

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 11. Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 279–311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

44.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598

45.

Pavlov

I. P.

(1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

46.

Pineles

S. L.

Vogt

D. S.

Orr

S. P.

(2009). Personality and fear responses during conditioning: Beyond extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 48–53. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.003

47.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Perugini

(2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal Of Research In Personality, 47, 609–612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009

48.

Snijders

T. A. B.

Bosker

R. J.

(2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

49.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 84–90. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002

50.

Spence

K. W.

Spence

J. T.

(1964). Relation of eyelid conditioning to manifest anxiety, extraversion, and rigidity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 144–149. doi:10.1037/h0044881.

51.

Spence

K. W.

Taylor

J. A.

(1953). The relation of conditioned response strength to anxiety in normal, neurotic, and psychotic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 265–272. doi:10.1037/h0056392

52.

Stead

Fekken

G. C.

(2014). Agreeableness at the core of the dark triad of personality. Individual Differences Research, 12, 131–141.

53.

Taylor

J. A.

(1951). The relationship of anxiety to the conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 81–92. doi:10.1037/h0059488

54.

Walther

(2002). Guilty by mere association: Evaluative conditioning and the spreading attitude effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 919–934. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.919

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB

Criterion: CS-POST	Model 1			Model 2
	zPE	95% CI		zPE	95% CI
	zPE	Lower	Upper	zPE	Lower	Upper
Intercept	.051	.004	.097	.051	.003	.099
US valence (VAL)	.134	.114	.154	.136	.115	.156
Openness (O)				.009	−.015	.033
Conscientiousness (C)				−.011	−.035	.014
Extraversion (E)				.003	−.023	.029
Agreeableness (A)				.005	−.020	.030
Neuroticism (N)				.002	−.024	.029
VAL × O				.001	−.019	.021
VAL × C				.016	−.004	.036
VAL × E				.017	−.004	.038
VAL × A				.027	.006	.048
VAL × N				.026	.004	.048
CS-PRE	.529	.507	.551	.530	.508	.552
Study 2	−.011	−.080	.057	−.015	−.086	.056
Study 3	−.009	−.080	.062	−.008	−.081	.064
Study 4	−.018	−.094	.059	−.003	−.085	.079
Study 5	−.204	−.274	−.135	−.205	−.277	−.133