# Effect of emotion dysregulation and emotion regulation strategies on evaluative conditioning

Théo Besson, Juliette Richetin, Oulmann Zerhouni

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Théo Besson, Juliette Richetin, Oulmann Zerhouni. Effect of emotion dysregulation and emotion regulation strategies on evaluative conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 2023, 82, pp.101890. 10.1016/j.lmot.2023.101890. hal-04329350

HAL Id: hal-04329350

https://hal.science/hal-04329350

Submitted on 3 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Effect of emotion dysregulation and emotion regulation strategies on evaluative conditioning

Théo Besson, Juliette Richetin, Oulmann Zerhouni

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Théo Besson, Juliette Richetin, Oulmann Zerhouni. Effect of emotion dysregulation and emotion regulation strategies on evaluative conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 2023, 82, pp.101890. 10.1016/j.lmot.2023.101890. hal-04329350

HAL Id: hal-04329350

https://hal.science/hal-04329350v1

Submitted on 3 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Effect of emotion dysregulation and emotion regulation strategies on evaluative conditioning

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Théo Besson<sup>a, b, *, 1</sup>, Juliette Richetin<sup>a, 2</sup>, Oulmann Zerhouni<sup>b, c, 3</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

- Emotion regulation

- Evaluative conditioning

- Emotion regulation strategies

- Evaluative learning

- Attitudes learning

## ABSTRACT

Evaluative conditioning (EC) appears when a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) is repeatedly paired with a positive or negative unconditioned stimulus (US). Most studies on EC have focused on the influence of procedural factors (e.g., number of presentations) and awareness, while emotional factors have been understudied. However, literature shows that emotional processes could be involved. In this paper, we assume that, upon appraisal, the US elicits a particular emotion that is then paired with the CS. In this perspective, the ability to regulate emotions could modulate how individuals pay attention to stimuli, appraise them, and, more generally, use them. For these reasons, emotion regulation could be an interindividual moderator of the EC. To test this assumption, we explore whether (i) emotional dysregulation and (ii) emotional regulation strategies moderate EC effects. We conducted an integrative analysis (n = 236) based on two studies using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and an observational study using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (n = 128). Higher levels of emotional dysregulation were associated with less positive conditioning. Furthermore, the reappraisal strategy was associated with higher positive conditioning. Therefore, people differ in how they are conditioned (particularly positively conditioned), and part of it is because of emotion regulation differences. This contribution opens several new questions for the EC field to understand more precisely when and where these emotional processes are involved.

## 1. Introduction

Attitudes can be defined as a psychological tendency to evaluate a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1). They partially drive our behaviors (Guyer & Fabrigar, 2015). Evaluative Conditioning (EC) constitutes one of the most studied ways to acquire attitudes. It occurs when a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) is repeatedly paired with a positive or negative unconditioned stimulus (US; De Houwer, 2007). Standard EC paradigms typically consist of pairing neutral conditioned stimuli, such as geometric figures or unfamiliar logos (CSs), with either positive unconditioned stimuli, such as photographs of kittens

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126 Milano, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de la République, 92000 Nanterre, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Université Rouen Normandie, Centre de Recherches sur les Fonctionnements et Dysfonctionnements Psychologiques, Place Emile Blondel 76821 Mont Saint Aignan CEDEX</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence to: Dipartimento di psicologia, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126 Milano, Mi, Italy.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: theotamsi.besson@unimib.it (T. Besson).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ ORCID: 0000-0002-6508-823X.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² ORCID: 0000-0002-9175-5892.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ ORCID: 0000-0002-4026-1921.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Effect of emotion dysregulation and emotion regulation strategies on evaluative conditioning

Théo Besson<sup>a, b, *, 1</sup>, Juliette Richetin<sup>a, 2</sup>, Oulmann Zerhouni<sup>b, c, 3</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Emotion regulation

Evaluative conditioning

Emotion regulation strategies

Evaluative learning

Attitudes learning

## ABSTRACT

Evaluative conditioning (EC) appears when a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) is repeatedly paired with a positive or negative unconditioned stimulus (US). Most studies on EC have focused on the influence of procedural factors (e.g., number of presentations) and awareness, while emotional factors have been understudied. However, literature shows that emotional processes could be involved. In this paper, we assume that, upon appraisal, the US elicits a particular emotion that is then paired with the CS. In this perspective, the ability to regulate emotions could modulate how individuals pay attention to stimuli, appraise them, and, more generally, use them. For these reasons, emotion regulation could be an interindividual moderator of the EC. To test this assumption, we explore whether (i) emotional dysregulation and (ii) emotional regulation strategies moderate EC effects. We conducted an integrative analysis (n = 236) based on two studies using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and an observational study using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (n = 128). Higher levels of emotional dysregulation were associated with less positive conditioning. Furthermore, the reappraisal strategy was associated with higher positive conditioning. Therefore, people differ in how they are conditioned (particularly positively conditioned), and part of it is because of emotion regulation differences. This contribution opens several new questions for the EC field to understand more precisely when and where these emotional processes are involved.

## 1. Introduction

Attitudes can be defined as a psychological tendency to evaluate a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1). They partially drive our behaviors (Guyer & Fabrigar, 2015). Evaluative Conditioning (EC) constitutes one of the most studied ways to acquire attitudes. It occurs when a neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) is repeatedly paired with a positive or negative unconditioned stimulus (US; De Houwer, 2007). Standard EC paradigms typically consist of pairing neutral conditioned stimuli, such as geometric figures or unfamiliar logos (CSs), with either positive unconditioned stimuli, such as photographs of kittens

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126 Milano, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Université Paris Nanterre, 200 avenue de la République, 92000 Nanterre, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Université Rouen Normandie, Centre de Recherches sur les Fonctionnements et Dysfonctionnements Psychologiques, Place Emile Blondel 76821 Mont Saint Aignan CEDEX</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence to: Dipartimento di psicologia, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126 Milano, Mi, Italy.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: theotamsi.besson@unimib.it (T. Besson).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ ORCID: 0000-0002-6508-823X.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² ORCID: 0000-0002-9175-5892.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ ORCID: 0000-0002-4026-1921.</footnote>
(positive USs), or negative unconditioned stimuli, such as photographs of snakes (negative USs). As a result of these repeated pairings, participants tend to rate more positively the CSs associated with positive USs and more negatively the CSs associated with negative USs. Occurrences of EC happen daily, such as through advertising (e.g., a popular celebrity (positive US) frequently praises a service or product (CS), resulting in improved evaluations of that product, Till et al., 2008).

In the EC domain, most empirical works have studied the procedural factors that influence the EC effect (e.g., see Moran et al., 2022 for a review) or its degree of automaticity (e.g., Corneille & Stahl, 2019; Moran et al., 2022). Instead, very few have focused on how people process emotional information in an EC paradigm, despite its theoretical relevance. Research has shown the moderating role of emotional capacities and particularly emotional regulation on EC (e.g., Gawronski & Mitchell, 2014; Gawronski et al., 2015; Zerhouni & Lepage, 2018). We aim to replicate these findings and identify if specific emotional regulation strategies may be involved in evaluative learning.

## 2. Emotion regulation as a moderator of evaluative conditioning

Emotion regulation abilities allow one to adapt to the inner and outer environment and maintain proper functioning. Emotional regulation covers all the processes by which an individual willingly modifies different parameters of the emotional reaction (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Four types of strategies have been identified: (1) decreasing negative and (2) positive emotions, and (3) increasing negative and (4) positive emotions, with 1 and 4 being the most commonly used (Gross et al., 2006). These emotion regulation skills have consequences in various domains. For example, people with difficulties regulating emotions have fewer friends, poorer social and marital relationships, and more frequent interpersonal conflicts (e.g., Lopes et al., 2005; Schutte et al., 2001).

Individuals can regulate their emotions a priori using Antecedent focused strategies, taking actions to defuse them before they manifest themselves (Gross, 2007). They can also do it a posteriori using Response-focused strategies by means implemented to modulate the emotion after it has occurred. For example, during a meeting, you receive an alarming message from a relative and you try to feign calm in front of your boss to remain professional.

In the case of EC involving emotional content, both strategies seem relevant. More specifically, we assume that individuals will use them to modulate the reactions evoked by the US. Some empirical evidence has already supported the moderation role of emotional regulation on the EC effect through manipulation or by measuring individual differences. For example, participants instructed to directly use specific emotion regulation strategies during an EC paradigm (i.e., suppression of emotional reactions, reappraisal of the US valence, and facial blocking of emotional reaction) showed lower EC effects but only on direct measures and not indirect ones (Gawronski et al., 2015). Moreover, the more difficulties participants had in regulating their emotions, the more likely they showed an EC effect with negative USs eliciting intense or moderate arousal (Zerhouni & Lepage, 2018). Like personality traits such as Neuroticism or Agreeableness can moderate EC effects (Vogel et al., 2019) and are linked to variations in emotion appraisal, individual differences in emotion regulation can modulate how people pay attention and interpret emotional stimuli.

## 3. Study rationale

Based on previous literature, we argue that EC implies emotional information processing. Our main hypothesis is that the US elicits a specific emotion attached to the paired CS during the learning phase. Emotion regulation can then moderate the emotion evoked by the US and, in turn, the CS. In (1) an integrative study, we tested if the EC effect was moderated by emotion dysregulation, and (2) in another study, we tested if some specific emotion regulation strategies were at work.

## 4. Integrative analysis 1

We analyzed the data sets from two previous studies (1a and 1b) that used an EC procedure and measured individual differences in emotion dysregulation through the French version of the Difficulties Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (DERS, Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2013). These studies were conducted with another purpose than the present one and included other measurements not relevant here.<fnref n="4" /> This integrative analysis was conducted to test our first hypothesis, according to which individual differences in emotion regulation would moderate the EC effect. Previous studies showed that poor emotion regulation abilities are linked to greater EC effects. We thus hypothesize that higher dysregulation scores will be associated with greater EC effects, particularly for the CS paired with negative USs.

### 4.1. Study 1a – materials and methods

#### 4.1.1. Participants

Sixty-four first-year psychology students from a French university participated in this study in exchange for ECTS (European Credits Transfer System). The data from nineteen participants were excluded from the analyses due to measurement failures.<fnref n="5" /> The final sample

<footnote n="4">⁴ We conducted these two studies to initially test whether the EC effect would be moderated by Heart Rate Variability (Study 1a) and mindfulness (Study 1b).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Nineteen participants did not complete the DERS which were sent to participants a few days after the EC task. So we excluded their data from the analysis.</footnote>
(positive USs), or negative unconditioned stimuli, such as photographs of snakes (negative USs). As a result of these repeated pairings, participants tend to rate more positively the CSs associated with positive USs and more negatively the CSs associated with negative USs. Occurrences of EC happen daily, such as through advertising (e.g., a popular celebrity (positive US) frequently praises a service or product (CS), resulting in improved evaluations of that product, Till et al., 2008).

In the EC domain, most empirical works have studied the procedural factors that influence the EC effect (e.g., see Moran et al., 2022 for a review) or its degree of automaticity (e.g., Corneille & Stahl, 2019; Moran et al., 2022). Instead, very few have focused on how people process emotional information in an EC paradigm, despite its theoretical relevance. Research has shown the moderating role of emotional capacities and particularly emotional regulation on EC (e.g., Gawronski & Mitchell, 2014; Gawronski et al., 2015; Zerhouni & Lepage, 2018). We aim to replicate these findings and identify if specific emotional regulation strategies may be involved in evaluative learning.

## 2. Emotion regulation as a moderator of evaluative conditioning

Emotion regulation abilities allow one to adapt to the inner and outer environment and maintain proper functioning. Emotional regulation covers all the processes by which an individual willingly modifies different parameters of the emotional reaction (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Four types of strategies have been identified: (1) decreasing negative and (2) positive emotions, and (3) increasing negative and (4) positive emotions, with 1 and 4 being the most commonly used (Gross et al., 2006). These emotion regulation skills have consequences in various domains. For example, people with difficulties regulating emotions have fewer friends, poorer social and marital relationships, and more frequent interpersonal conflicts (e.g., Lopes et al., 2005; Schutte et al., 2001).

Individuals can regulate their emotions a priori using Antecedent focused strategies, taking actions to defuse them before they manifest themselves (Gross, 2007). They can also do it a posteriori using Response-focused strategies by means implemented to modulate the emotion after it has occurred. For example, during a meeting, you receive an alarming message from a relative and you try to feign calm in front of your boss to remain professional.

In the case of EC involving emotional content, both strategies seem relevant. More specifically, we assume that individuals will use them to modulate the reactions evoked by the US. Some empirical evidence has already supported the moderation role of emotional regulation on the EC effect through manipulation or by measuring individual differences. For example, participants instructed to directly use specific emotion regulation strategies during an EC paradigm (i.e., suppression of emotional reactions, reappraisal of the US valence, and facial blocking of emotional reaction) showed lower EC effects but only on direct measures and not indirect ones (Gawronski et al., 2015). Moreover, the more difficulties participants had in regulating their emotions, the more likely they showed an EC effect with negative USs eliciting intense or moderate arousal (Zerhouni & Lepage, 2018). Like personality traits such as Neuroticism or Agreeableness can moderate EC effects (Vogel et al., 2019) and are linked to variations in emotion appraisal, individual differences in emotion regulation can modulate how people pay attention and interpret emotional stimuli.

## 3. Study rationale

Based on previous literature, we argue that EC implies emotional information processing. Our main hypothesis is that the US elicits a specific emotion attached to the paired CS during the learning phase. Emotion regulation can then moderate the emotion evoked by the US and, in turn, the CS. In (1) an integrative study, we tested if the EC effect was moderated by emotion dysregulation, and (2) in another study, we tested if some specific emotion regulation strategies were at work.

## 4. Integrative analysis 1

We analyzed the data sets from two previous studies (1a and 1b) that used an EC procedure and measured individual differences in emotion dysregulation through the French version of the Difficulties Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (DERS, Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2013). These studies were conducted with another purpose than the present one and included other measurements not relevant here.<fnref n="4" /> This integrative analysis was conducted to test our first hypothesis, according to which individual differences in emotion regulation would moderate the EC effect. Previous studies showed that poor emotion regulation abilities are linked to greater EC effects. We thus hypothesize that higher dysregulation scores will be associated with greater EC effects, particularly for the CS paired with negative USs.

### 4.1. Study 1a – materials and methods

#### 4.1.1. Participants

Sixty-four first-year psychology students from a French university participated in this study in exchange for ECTS (European Credits Transfer System). The data from nineteen participants were excluded from the analyses due to measurement failures.<fnref n="5" /> The final sample

<footnote n="4">⁴ We conducted these two studies to initially test whether the EC effect would be moderated by Heart Rate Variability (Study 1a) and mindfulness (Study 1b).</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Nineteen participants did not complete the DERS which were sent to participants a few days after the EC task. So we excluded their data from the analysis.</footnote>
consisted of 45 participants (44 females, 1 male, M age = 18.9, SD = 2.29, range 18–31 years).

### 4.1.2. Procedure

After being greeted individually by the experimenter, participants gave informed consent and started the experiment. They first performed a cognitive flexibility task on a computer. We then measured participants' heart rate variability. Afterward, they performed an evaluative conditioning paradigm on a computer. They evaluated each CS first (pre-conditioning). In the conditioning phase, participants saw eight pairs of CS-US appearing on their screens. The US occupied the entire screen, while the CS was a 6 × 6 cm square centered at the bottom. Each pair was presented eight times in a random order giving a total of 64 pair presentations. Four CSs were matched to 4 negative USs, and 4 CSs were matched to 4 positive USs. These pairs were generated randomly across participants but remained constant within a participant. After this, participants rated their recall of the CS-US pairs (contingency memory) before rating the CSs again (post-conditioning). A few days later, they received the French version of the Difficulties Emotion Regulation Questionnaire questionnaire by email to complete.

### 4.1.3. Material

#### 4.1.3.1. CSs. 
The 8 CSs were geometric figures from the Leuven Embedded Figures Tests (De-Wit et al., 2017; Appendix A).

#### 4.1.3.2. USs. 
The 8 USs were images from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS, Lang et al., 1997). The USs were selected from the most extreme values in valence (positive vs. negative) and arousal (high vs. low), with 2 pictures for each category (Appendix B).

### 4.1.4. Measures

#### 4.1.4.1. CSs ratings. 
The CSs were rated before and after the learning phase on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ("very unpleasant") to 11 ("very pleasant").

#### 4.1.4.2. Contingency memory. 
Participants were asked to recall the valence of the US associated with each CS. If they could not remember it, they had to indicate whether they found it pleasant or unpleasant. The contingency memory score is the sum of all the correct responses (i.e., if the declared valence of the US is equivalent to the effective valence of the US paired with the CS; M = 7.02, SD = 1.16).

#### 4.1.4.3. Emotion regulation. 
We used the French translation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2013) to measure emotion regulation abilities. This scale consists of 36 items to which participants could respond on a 5-point scale (i. e., 1 = "almost never"; 2 = "a few times"; 3 = "half the time"; 4 = "most of the time"; 5 = "almost never"). Previous studies showed that the Awareness dimension of the DERS may not represent the same higher-order emotion regulation constructs as the other five factors (Bardeen et al., 2012). Moreover, without Awareness items, the DERS showed good internal consistency and a robust bifactor latent structure (Hallion et al., 2018). For these reasons, we excluded that dimension from our analysis. We then focused on the general dysregulation score without awareness score (M = 75.3, SD = 20.3, α = .93) and 5 of its 6 subscales: (1) Nonacceptance of emotional responses (M = 13.4, SD = 5.82, α = .88), (2) difficulty in engaging in goal-directed behavior (M = 16.5, SD = 4.67, α = .88), (3) Impulse control difficulties (M = 13.3, SD = 5.75, α = .90), (4), Limited access to emotion regulation strategies (M = 20.6, SD = 6.46, α = .83) and (5) lack of emotional clarity (M = 11.5, SD = 3.70, α = .80).

#### 4.1.4.4. Other measures. 
In this study, we also measured participants' heart rate variability and cognitive flexibility.<fnref n="6" />

## 4.2. Study 1b – materials and methods

### 4.2.1. Participants

The analyses included one hundred and ninety-one participants recruited through the Prolific academic platform and paid £ 0.85 (84 females, 106 males, 1 other, M age = 28.91, SD = 10.52, range 18–70 years).

## 4.3. Procedure

Participants took part in this study online. They first completed an EC procedure similar to the one used in Study 1a. Then, participants completed the DERS, followed by the French version of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ, Heeren et al., 2011), the French version of the Equanimity Scale (Juneau et al., 2020), and finally, a demographic questionnaire. They also indicated whether they had participated seriously in the research or experienced technical problems during the study.

<footnote n="6">⁶ As those measures will not be treated in this contribution, we will not provide further details.</footnote>
consisted of 45 participants (44 females, 1 male, M age = 18.9, SD = 2.29, range 18–31 years).

### 4.1.2. Procedure

After being greeted individually by the experimenter, participants gave informed consent and started the experiment. They first performed a cognitive flexibility task on a computer. We then measured participants' heart rate variability. Afterward, they performed an evaluative conditioning paradigm on a computer. They evaluated each CS first (pre-conditioning). In the conditioning phase, participants saw eight pairs of CS-US appearing on their screens. The US occupied the entire screen, while the CS was a 6 × 6 cm square centered at the bottom. Each pair was presented eight times in a random order giving a total of 64 pair presentations. Four CSs were matched to 4 negative USs, and 4 CSs were matched to 4 positive USs. These pairs were generated randomly across participants but remained constant within a participant. After this, participants rated their recall of the CS-US pairs (contingency memory) before rating the CSs again (post-conditioning). A few days later, they received the French version of the Difficulties Emotion Regulation Questionnaire questionnaire by email to complete.

### 4.1.3. Material

#### 4.1.3.1. CSs. 
The 8 CSs were geometric figures from the Leuven Embedded Figures Tests (De-Wit et al., 2017; Appendix A).

#### 4.1.3.2. USs. 
The 8 USs were images from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS, Lang et al., 1997). The USs were selected from the most extreme values in valence (positive vs. negative) and arousal (high vs. low), with 2 pictures for each category (Appendix B).

### 4.1.4. Measures

#### 4.1.4.1. CSs ratings. 
The CSs were rated before and after the learning phase on a Likert scale ranging from 1 ("very unpleasant") to 11 ("very pleasant").

#### 4.1.4.2. Contingency memory. 
Participants were asked to recall the valence of the US associated with each CS. If they could not remember it, they had to indicate whether they found it pleasant or unpleasant. The contingency memory score is the sum of all the correct responses (i.e., if the declared valence of the US is equivalent to the effective valence of the US paired with the CS; M = 7.02, SD = 1.16).

#### 4.1.4.3. Emotion regulation. 
We used the French translation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2013) to measure emotion regulation abilities. This scale consists of 36 items to which participants could respond on a 5-point scale (i. e., 1 = "almost never"; 2 = "a few times"; 3 = "half the time"; 4 = "most of the time"; 5 = "almost never"). Previous studies showed that the Awareness dimension of the DERS may not represent the same higher-order emotion regulation constructs as the other five factors (Bardeen et al., 2012). Moreover, without Awareness items, the DERS showed good internal consistency and a robust bifactor latent structure (Hallion et al., 2018). For these reasons, we excluded that dimension from our analysis. We then focused on the general dysregulation score without awareness score (M = 75.3, SD = 20.3, α = .93) and 5 of its 6 subscales: (1) Nonacceptance of emotional responses (M = 13.4, SD = 5.82, α = .88), (2) difficulty in engaging in goal-directed behavior (M = 16.5, SD = 4.67, α = .88), (3) Impulse control difficulties (M = 13.3, SD = 5.75, α = .90), (4), Limited access to emotion regulation strategies (M = 20.6, SD = 6.46, α = .83) and (5) lack of emotional clarity (M = 11.5, SD = 3.70, α = .80).

#### 4.1.4.4. Other measures. 
In this study, we also measured participants' heart rate variability and cognitive flexibility.<fnref n="6" />

## 4.2. Study 1b – materials and methods

### 4.2.1. Participants

The analyses included one hundred and ninety-one participants recruited through the Prolific academic platform and paid £ 0.85 (84 females, 106 males, 1 other, M age = 28.91, SD = 10.52, range 18–70 years).

## 4.3. Procedure

Participants took part in this study online. They first completed an EC procedure similar to the one used in Study 1a. Then, participants completed the DERS, followed by the French version of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ, Heeren et al., 2011), the French version of the Equanimity Scale (Juneau et al., 2020), and finally, a demographic questionnaire. They also indicated whether they had participated seriously in the research or experienced technical problems during the study.

<footnote n="6">⁶ As those measures will not be treated in this contribution, we will not provide further details.</footnote>
## 4.4. Materials

### 4.4.1. CSs

The 8 CSs were water brand logos used by Hütter and Sweldens (2018; studies 4–5) and pre-tested as the most neutral. These CSs were unknown to the participants.

### 4.4.2. USs

The 8 USs were taken from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang et al., 1997). They were selected based on their ratings compared to the average score of the set of images (+ 1 SD for positive USs and – 1SD for negative USs, see Appendix B).

## 4.5. Measures<fnref n="7" />

### 4.5.1. Emotion regulation

We again used the French translation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2013). We considered the general dysregulation score without awareness (M = 73.8, SD = 23, α = .96) and 5 of its 6 subscales: (1) Nonacceptance of emotional responses (M = 14, SD = 6.01, α = .90), (2) difficulty in engaging in goal-directed behavior (M = 15.2, SD = 4.70, α = .88), (3) Impulse control difficulties (M = 13, SD = 5.67, α = .90), (4) Limited access to emotion regulation strategies (M = 19.9, SD = 7.01, α = .881) and (5) lack of emotional clarity (M = 11.6, SD = 4.25, α = .84).

### 4.5.2. Evaluation of CSs

We used the same method as in Study 1a.

### 4.5.3. Contingency memory

Participants were asked to recall whether the valence of the US associated with each CS was positive or negative or whether they could not remember it. The sum of the correct responses was computed into a general contingency memory score (M = 6.45, SD = 1.70).

## 4.6. Analytic strategy

In total, the data from 236 participants were included in the analyses.<fnref n="8" /> Our experimental design was a 2 (US valence: positive vs. negative, within-subjects) × 2 (Measurement timing: pre vs. post-conditioning, within-subject) × (DERS score, continuous) × (Contingency memory, continuous).

For the analysis, first, we created two conditioning composite scores (for CSs paired with negative and positive CSs) by subtracting CS ratings from post- to pre-conditioning. Higher scores indicate an increase in positivity from pre- to post-conditioning. Hence, for positive US, the higher the score, the larger the conditioning effect is; for negative US, the lower the score, the larger the conditioning effect.

We then conducted a 2 (US valence: positive vs. negative, within-subjects) × 2 (Measurement: pre vs. post-conditioning, within-subject) repeated-measures ANOVA to test for an evaluative conditioning effect. Next, we performed two regression models in which we used the contingency memory score and the general DERS score without Awareness as independent variables and the negative or positive conditioning score as the dependent variable (named model 1-a and model 1-b, respectively). Finally, two regression models were carried out in which the five factors of the DERS were considered as independent variables and the negative or positive conditioning score as the dependent variable (model 2-a and model 2-b, respectively). All correlations of the DERS dimensions are presented in Appendix C.

## 4.7. Results

### 4.7.1. Conditioning effects

The repeated measure ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between the measurement and the US valence, $F(1,235) = 114.98, p < .001, \eta^2 = 0.05$. CSs paired with positive USs were evaluated more positively after ($M = 6.39, SD = 1.72$) than before ($M = 5.70, SD = 1.62$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = -0.69, t(235) = -7.6, p_{Tukey} < .001$. CSs paired with negative USs were evaluated more negatively after ($M = 4.94, SD = 1.69$) than before ($M = 5.77, SD = 1.67$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = 0.83, t(235) = 8.52, p_{Tukey} < .001$. We also controlled for a difference in evaluations between CSs before conditioning, and the analysis was not significant, $M_{difference} = -0.06, t(235) = -0.63, p_{Tukey} = .923$.

<footnote n="7">⁷ The level of mindfulness was measured using the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), translated and validated in French (Heeren et al., 2011), and equanimity with the Equanimity Scale in French (Juneau et al., 2020).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ When the data were aggregated, we found a contingency memory score of $M = 6.56, SD = 1.62$. Moreover, on the DERS, the general dysregulation score without awareness was $M = 74.08, SD = 22.49$ (α = .95); for the Nonacceptance dimension $M = 13.91, SD = 5.97$ (α = .9); for the Goals dimension $M = 15.42, SD = 4.72$ (α = .88); for the Impulse dimension $M = 13.09, SD = 5.67$ (α = .90); for the Strategies dimension $M = 20.06, SD = 6.90$ (α = .87); and for the Clarity dimension $M = 11.61, SD = 4.14$ (α = .84).</footnote>
## 4.4. Materials

### 4.4.1. SCs

The 8 CSs were water brand logos used by Hütter and Sweldens (2018; studies 4–5) and pre-tested as the most neutral. These CSs were unknown to the participants.

### 4.4.2. USs

The 8 USs were taken from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang et al., 1997). They were selected based on their ratings compared to the average score of the set of images (+ 1 SD for positive USs and – 1SD for negative USs, see Appendix B).

## 4.5. Measures<fnref n="7" />

### 4.5.1. Emotion regulation

We again used the French translation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2013). We considered the general dysregulation score without awareness (M = 73.8, SD = 23, α = .96) and 5 of its 6 subscales: (1) Nonacceptance of emotional responses (M = 14, SD = 6.01, α = .90), (2) difficulty in engaging in goal-directed behavior (M = 15.2, SD = 4.70, α = .88), (3) Impulse control difficulties (M = 13, SD = 5.67, α = .90), (4) Limited access to emotion regulation strategies (M = 19.9, SD = 7.01, α = .881)and (5) lack of emotional clarity (M = 11.6, SD = 4.25, α = .84).

### 4.5.2. Evaluation of CSs

We used the same method as in Study 1a.

### 4.5.3. Contingency memory

Participants were asked to recall whether the valence of the US associated with each CS was positive or negative or whether they could not remember it. The sum of the correct responses was computed into a general contingency memory score (M = 6.45, SD = 1.70).

## 4.6. Analytic strategy

In total, the data from 236 participants were included in the analyses.<fnref n="8" /> Our experimental design was a 2 (US valence: positive vs. negative, within-subjects) × 2 (Measurement timing: pre vs. post-conditioning, within-subject) × (DERS score, continuous) × (Contingency memory, continuous).

For the analysis, first, we created two conditioning composite scores (for CSs paired with negative and positive CSs) by subtracting CS ratings from post- to pre-conditioning. Higher scores indicate an increase in positivity from pre- to post-conditioning. Hence, for positive US, the higher the score, the larger the conditioning effect is; for negative US, the lower the score, the larger the conditioning effect.

We then conducted a 2 (US valence: positive vs. negative, within-subjects) × 2 (Measurement: pre vs. post-conditioning, within-subject) repeated-measures ANOVA to test for an evaluative conditioning effect. Next, we performed two regression models in which we used the contingency memory score and the general DERS score without Awareness as independent variables and the negative or positive conditioning score as the dependent variable (named model 1-a and model 1-b, respectively). Finally, two regression models were carried out in which the five factors of the DERS were considered as independent variables and the negative or positive conditioning score as the dependent variable (model 2-a and model 2-b, respectively). All correlations of the DERS dimensions are presented in Appendix C.

## 4.7. Results

### 4.7.1. Conditioning effects

The repeated measure ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between the measurement and the US valence, $F(1,235) = 114.98, p < .001, \eta^2 = 0.05$. CSs paired with positive USs were evaluated more positively after ($M = 6.39, SD = 1.72$) than before ($M = 5.70, SD = 1.62$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = -0.69, t(235) = -7.6, p_{Tukey} < .001$. CSs paired with negative USs were evaluated more negatively after ($M = 4.94, SD = 1.69$) than before ($M = 5.77, SD = 1.67$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = 0.83, t(235) = 8.52, p_{Tukey} < .001$. We also controlled for a difference in evaluations between CSs before conditioning, and the analysis was not significant, $M_{difference} = -0.06, t(235) = -0.63, p_{Tukey} = .923$.

<footnote n="7">⁷ The level of mindfulness was measured using the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), translated and validated in French (Heeren et al., 2011), and equanimity with the Equanimity Scale in French (Juneau et al., 2020).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ When the data were aggregated, we found a contingency memory score of $M = 6.56, SD = 1.62$. Moreover, on the DERS, the general dysregulation score without awareness was $M = 74.08, SD = 22.49$ (α = .95); for the Nonacceptance dimension $M = 13.91, SD = 5.97$ (α = .9); for the Goals dimension $M = 15.42, SD = 4.72$ (α = .88); for the Impulse dimension $M = 13.09, SD = 5.67$ (α = .90); for the Strategies dimension $M = 20.06, SD = 6.90$ (α = .87); and for the Clarity dimension $M = 11.61, SD = 4.14$ (α = .84).</footnote>
### 4.7.2. Model 1-a: negative conditioning

The analysis revealed a trend effect of contingency memory on negative conditioning; $b = -0.12$, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.01], $t(233) = -1.88$, $p = .062$. No effect of the DERS score was observed; $b = -0.01$, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.14], $t(233) = -0.21$, $p = .835$.

### 4.7.3. Model 1-b: positive conditioning

The analysis revealed a significant effect of contingency memory on positive conditioning; $b = 0.37$, 95% CI [0.25, 0.49], $t(233) = 6.19$, $p < .001$. The more participants remembered the US valence associated with the CS, the stronger the EC effect. We also found a significant effect of the DERS score; $b = -0.13$, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.01], $t(233) = -2.14$ $p = .033$. The more participants have a high emotional dysregulation score, the weaker the positive EC effect (Fig. 1).

## 4.8. Effect of the 6 specific emotion deregulation factors

### 4.8.1. Model 2-a: negative conditioning

The analysis revealed no effect of the DERS subscales on negative conditioning; all ps > .05 (Table 1).

### 4.8.2. Model 2-b: positive conditioning

The analysis revealed no effect of the DESR dimensions on positive conditioning; all p's > .05 (Table 2).

## 4.9. Discussion

In this integrative analysis of two studies, we found a positive and negative evaluative conditioning effect. Thus, the CSs, following their pairing with positive USs, were evaluated more positively than those associated with negative USs. Similarly, in line with the current literature, we found that contingency memory does predict the magnitude of positive conditioning. We found similar - but not significant - results for negative conditioning.

In line with the literature, we hypothesized that the more emotion regulation difficulties participants had, the higher their conditioning scores would be. We found significant results in the opposite direction and only for positive conditioning. The higher the participants reported emotional dysregulation, the weaker the EC effect when CSs were paired with positive USs. Although contrary to our hypothesis, these results are related to those obtained by Zerhouni and Lepage (2018). The more difficulties participants had in regulating their emotions, the more likely they exhibited strong evaluative conditioning when CSs were associated with negative USs eliciting strong or moderate arousal. They thus observed stronger negative conditioning, whereas we observed weaker positive conditioning. These results point toward emotion regulation influencing the magnitude of the EC effect and that dysregulation diminishes the possibility of learning positive elements from the environment. As mentioned earlier, emotion regulation is based on different strategies used to varying degrees by individuals. Then, we wanted to know if specific strategies were involved in the role of emotion dysregulation on the EC effect.

# 5. Study 2

The emotion regulation strategies identified in the literature are numerous. When referring to the process model, strategies fall into two main clusters: (i) *antecedent-focused* and (ii) *response-focused*. Antecedent-focused strategies are implemented before the emotional response is fully activated. On the contrary, response-focused strategies are implemented once the emotion is already underway (Gross & John, 2003). We looked for strategies commonly used by people in their daily life, well-known by the research community, that represent both antecedent-focused and response-focused strategies and are easy to measure by questionnaire. Based on those criteria, we focused on *Emotion suppression* and *Cognitive reappraisal*. The first consists of inhibiting the visible manifestations of the emotion and

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Effect of the general DERS without awareness score on positive conditioning with 95 % confidence interval.</figcaption></figure>
### 4.7.2. Model 1-a: negative conditioning

The analysis revealed a trend effect of contingency memory on negative conditioning; $b = -0.12$, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.01], $t(233) = -1.88$, $p = .062$. No effect of the DERS score was observed; $b = -0.01$, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.14], $t(233) = -0.21$, $p = .835$.

### 4.7.3. Model 1-b: positive conditioning

The analysis revealed a significant effect of contingency memory on positive conditioning; $b = 0.37$, 95% CI [0.25, 0.49], $t(233) = 6.19$, $p < .001$. The more participants remembered the US valence associated with the CS, the stronger the EC effect. We also found a significant effect of the DERS score; $b = -0.13$, 95% CI [-0.25, -0.01], $t(233) = -2.14$ $p = .033$. The more participants have a high emotional dysregulation score, the weaker the positive EC effect (Fig. 1).

## 4.8. Effect of the 6 specific emotion deregulation factors

### 4.8.1. Model 2-a: negative conditioning

The analysis revealed no effect of the DERS subscales on negative conditioning; all ps > .05 (Table 1).

### 4.8.2. Model 2-b: positive conditioning

The analysis revealed no effect of the DESR dimensions on positive conditioning; all p's > .05 (Table 2).

## 4.9. Discussion

In this integrative analysis of two studies, we found a positive and negative evaluative conditioning effect. Thus, the CSs, following their pairing with positive USs, were evaluated more positively than those associated with negative USs. Similarly, in line with the current literature, we found that contingency memory does predict the magnitude of positive conditioning. We found similar - but not significant - results for negative conditioning.

In line with the literature, we hypothesized that the more emotion regulation difficulties participants had, the higher their conditioning scores would be. We found significant results in the opposite direction and only for positive conditioning. The higher the participants reported emotional dysregulation, the weaker the EC effect when CSs were paired with positive USs. Although contrary to our hypothesis, these results are related to those obtained by Zerhouni and Lepage (2018). The more difficulties participants had in regulating their emotions, the more likely they exhibited strong evaluative conditioning when CSs were associated with negative USs eliciting strong or moderate arousal. They thus observed stronger negative conditioning, whereas we observed weaker positive conditioning. These results point toward emotion regulation influencing the magnitude of the EC effect and that dysregulation diminishes the possibility of learning positive elements from the environment. As mentioned earlier, emotion regulation is based on different strategies used to varying degrees by individuals. Then, we wanted to know if specific strategies were involved in the role of emotion dysregulation on the EC effect.

# 5. Study 2

The emotion regulation strategies identified in the literature are numerous. When referring to the process model, strategies fall into two main clusters: (i) *antecedent-focused* and (ii) *response-focused*. Antecedent-focused strategies are implemented before the emotional response is fully activated. On the contrary, response-focused strategies are implemented once the emotion is already underway (Gross & John, 2003). We looked for strategies commonly used by people in their daily life, well-known by the research community, that represent both antecedent-focused and response-focused strategies and are easy to measure by questionnaire. Based on those criteria, we focused on *Emotion suppression* and *Cognitive reappraisal*. The first consists of inhibiting the visible manifestations of the emotion and

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Effect of the general DERS without awareness score on positive conditioning with 95 % confidence interval.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Effects of the DERS dimensions on negative evaluative conditioning.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th rowspan="2">Estimate</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th rowspan="2">Stand. estimate</th><th colspan="2">95 % confidence interval</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>-0.87</td><td>0.36</td><td>-2.41</td><td>0.017</td><td></td><td>-0.20</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Nonacceptance</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.823</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.21</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Goal</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.779</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Impulse</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>-1.10</td><td>0.272</td><td>-0.10</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Strategies</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.16</td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.770</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.14</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Effects of the DERS dimensions on positive conditioning.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th rowspan="2">Estimate</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th rowspan="2">Stand. Estimate</th><th colspan="2">95 % confidence interval</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.34</td><td>3.44</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td></td><td>-0.25</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Nonacceptance</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.74</td><td>0.459</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Goal</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.500</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.21</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Impulse</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.36</td><td>0.720</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Strategies</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.41</td><td>0.685</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.23</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.68</td><td>0.495</td><td>-0.06</td><td>-0.23</td><td>0.11</td></tr></tbody></table>

focusing on their expression. It is a response-focused strategy. The second consists of changing the way of thinking about an emotional situation and is an antecedent-focused strategy. As a general rule, even if there are no adaptive vs. maladaptive strategies (Aldao, 2013), cognitive reappraisal is considered appropriate since changing the perception of a situation allows for changing emotion (Ochsner & Gross, 2005). For example, a student will be less afraid if they re-evaluate an oral presentation situation as an opportunity to get advice from their teacher. Cognitive reappraisal proved its efficiency on many occasions in improving positive emotions and reducing negative emotions (e.g., Wang et al., 2021). Conversely, expressive suppression is often seen as a maladaptive strategy since silencing the expressive component does not suppress the other emotional components. Moreover, feigned emotions are often perceived by people, which can alter social relationships and long-term emotional experiences (see, for example, Dawel et al., 2017; Grandey et al., 2005). From a clinical perspective, suppression was associated with psychopathological symptoms (Aldao et al., 2010). These strategies are assessed through the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). This questionnaire evaluates the frequency of use of two emotional regulation strategies when faced with a positive or negative situation. We, therefore, hypothesized that individuals using expressive suppression are most likely to be the ones showing the strongest EC effect, mainly the negative one. We had no specific hypothesis regarding cognitive reappraisal.

## 5.1. Methods

### 5.1.1. Participants

One hundred and forty-eight first-year undergraduate psychology students from a French university participated in this online study in exchange for ECTS (European Credits Transfer System). The data of twenty participants were removed from the analyzes after declaring they did not participate seriously or encountered technical problems during the study. The final sample consisted of 128 participants (101 females, 27 males, $M_{age} = 20.1$, $SD_{age} = 7.08$, range 17–91 years, 116 had a high-school diploma, 11 had a bachelor’s degree or more).

### 5.1.2. Material

We re-used the evaluative conditioning protocol from Study 1.

### 5.1.3. Measures

In this study, we used the French version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003). This 10-item questionnaire on which participants respond on a 7-point scale (ranging from 1"strongly disagree" to 7"strongly agree") evaluates two types of emotional regulation strategies: emotional suppression ($M = 16.5$, $SD = 4.94$, $\alpha = 0.72$), and reappraisal ($M = 28.3$, $SD = 5.69$, $\alpha = 0.68$). For the contingency memory, we obtained a score of $M = 6.84$, $SD = 1.16$.

### 5.1.4. Procedure

The procedure was identical to the first study.

## 5.2. Analytic strategy

Our experimental design was a 2 (US valence: positive vs. negative, within-subjects) × 2 (Measurement: pre vs. post-conditioning, within-subjects) × (Emotion Regulation Questionnaire score, continuous) x (Contingency memory, continuous).

We used the same method to compute scores as in Study 1 and used the same rationale for the statistical analysis.
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Effects of the DERS dimensions on negative evaluative conditioning.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th rowspan="2">Estimate</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th rowspan="2">Stand. estimate</th><th colspan="2">95 % confidence interval</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>-0.87</td><td>0.36</td><td>-2.41</td><td>0.017</td><td></td><td>-0.20</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td>Nonacceptance</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.823</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.21</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Goal</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.779</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.28</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Impulse</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>-1.10</td><td>0.272</td><td>-0.10</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Strategies</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.16</td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.770</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.14</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Effects of the DERS dimensions on positive conditioning.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th rowspan="2">Estimate</th><th rowspan="2">SE</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th rowspan="2">Stand. Estimate</th><th colspan="2">95 % confidence interval</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.34</td><td>3.44</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td></td><td>-0.25</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Nonacceptance</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.74</td><td>0.459</td><td>-0.07</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Goal</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.500</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.21</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Impulse</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.36</td><td>0.720</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Strategies</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.41</td><td>0.685</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.23</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Clarity</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.03</td><td>-0.68</td><td>0.495</td><td>-0.06</td><td>-0.23</td><td>0.11</td></tr></tbody></table>

focusing on their expression. It is a response-focused strategy. The second consists of changing the way of thinking about an emotional situation and is an antecedent-focused strategy. As a general rule, even if there are no adaptive vs. maladaptive strategies (Aldao, 2013), cognitive reappraisal is considered appropriate since changing the perception of a situation allows for changing emotion (Ochsner & Gross, 2005). For example, a student will be less afraid if they re-evaluate an oral presentation situation as an opportunity to get advice from their teacher. Cognitive reappraisal proved its efficiency on many occasions in improving positive emotions and reducing negative emotions (e.g., Wang et al., 2021). Conversely, expressive suppression is often seen as a maladaptive strategy since silencing the expressive component does not suppress the other emotional components. Moreover, feigned emotions are often perceived by people, which can alter social relationships and long-term emotional experiences (see, for example, Dawel et al., 2017; Grandey et al., 2005). From a clinical perspective, suppression was associated with psychopathological symptoms (Aldao et al., 2010). These strategies are assessed through the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). This questionnaire evaluates the frequency of use of two emotional regulation strategies when faced with a positive or negative situation. We, therefore, hypothesized that individuals using expressive suppression are most likely to be the ones showing the strongest EC effect, mainly the negative one. We had no specific hypothesis regarding cognitive reappraisal.

## 5.1. Methods

### 5.1.1. Participants

One hundred and forty-eight first-year undergraduate psychology students from a French university participated in this online study in exchange for ECTS (European Credits Transfer System). The data of twenty participants were removed from the analyzes after declaring they did not participate seriously or encountered technical problems during the study. The final sample consisted of 128 participants (101 females, 27 males, $M_{age} = 20.1$, $SD_{age} = 7.08$, range 17–91 years, 116 had a high-school diploma, 11 had a bachelor’s degree or more).

### 5.1.2. Material

We re-used the evaluative conditioning protocol from Study 1.

### 5.1.3. Measures

In this study, we used the French version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003). This 10-item questionnaire on which participants respond on a 7-point scale (ranging from 1"strongly disagree" to 7"strongly agree") evaluates two types of emotional regulation strategies: emotional suppression ($M = 16.5$, $SD = 4.94$, $\alpha = 0.72$), and reappraisal ($M = 28.3$, $SD = 5.69$, $\alpha = 0.68$). For the contingency memory, we obtained a score of $M = 6.84$, $SD = 1.16$.

### 5.1.4. Procedure

The procedure was identical to the first study.

## 5.2. Analytic strategy

Our experimental design was a 2 (US valence: positive vs. negative, within-subjects) × 2 (Measurement: pre vs. post-conditioning, within-subjects) × (Emotion Regulation Questionnaire score, continuous) x (Contingency memory, continuous).

We used the same method to compute scores as in Study 1 and used the same rationale for the statistical analysis.
## 5.3. Results

### 5.3.1. Conditioning effects

The repeated measure ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between the measurement and the US valence, $F(1,127) = 59.65, p < .001, \eta^2 = 0.05$. CSs paired with positive USs were evaluated more positively after ($M = 6.38, SD = 1.83$) than before ($M = 5.35, SD = 1.65$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = -1.03, t(127) = -6.74, p_{Tukey} < .001$. CSs paired with negative USs were evaluated more negatively after ($M = 4.75, SD = 1.67$) than before ($M = 5.36, SD = 1.58$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = 0.61, t(127) = 4.03, p_{Tukey} < .001$. We also controlled for a difference in evaluations between CSs before the conditioning, and the analysis was not significant, $M_{difference} = -0.01, t(127) = -0.01, p_{Tukey} = 1$.

## 5.4. Effect of emotional strategies and contingency memory

### 5.4.1. Model 1: negative conditioning

Analysis revealed an effect of contingency memory on negative conditioning; $b = -0.18, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.36, -0.01], t(125) = -2.05, p = .042$. The more participants remembered the CS-US pairs, the stronger the EC effect. No effect was found for the reappraisal strategies; $b = -0.02, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.20, 0.15], t(125) = -0.26, p = .798$; nor for the suppression strategies; $b = 0.08, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.10, 0.25], t(125) = 0.85, p = .397$.

### 5.4.2. Model 2: positive conditioning

Analysis revealed an effect of contingency memory on positive conditioning; $b = 0.17, 95\% \text{ CI } [0.01, 0.34], t(125) = 2.09, p = .039$ and for the reappraisal strategies; $b = 0.30, 95\% \text{ CI } [0.14, 0.47], t(125) = 3.64, p < .001$. The more participants remembered CS-US pairs, and the more they reported using reappraisal strategies, the stronger the EC effect. In contrast, no effect was found for the suppression strategies; $b = 0.15, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.02, 0.31], t(125) = 1.75, p = .083$ (Fig. 2).

## 5.5. Discussion

In this second study, we again observed a positive and negative EC effect and a correlation between the contingency memory of the CS-US pairs and the EC effect. Our main focus was to explore the role of two emotional regulation strategies particularly studied in the emotion regulation literature: emotional suppression and reappraisal. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not observe that the frequency of use of emotional suppression would predict stronger evaluative conditioning. However, positive conditioning was predicted by reappraisal. The more an individual declared to be prompt to use reappraisal, the stronger the positive EC effect.

Cognitive reappraisal is generally seen as a suitable strategy for decreasing negative emotions and/or increasing positive emotions. For example, a meta-analysis found that reappraisal leads to more successful regulation (Webb et al., 2012). In the short term, reappraisal decreases reports of negative emotions and increases reports of positive emotions (Denny & Ochsner, 2014; Gross, 1998; Jackson et al., 2000). In the long term, it is associated with higher psychological well-being and fewer psychopathological symptoms (Aldao et al., 2010; Cludius et al., 2020; Gross & John, 2003). It allows us to argue that the more individuals are prompt to use an effective emotion regulation strategy such as reappraisal, the more they can detect and/or transfer the positivity from the US to a CS.

# 6. General discussion

With these studies, we wanted (1) to replicate the results suggested by previous literature that emphasizes that difficulties in emotional regulation are associated with stronger evaluative conditioning effects and (2) to explore the roles of different emotion regulation strategies in that relationship.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Effect of reappraisal on positive conditioning; with 95 % confidence interval.</figcaption></figure>
## 5.3. Results

### 5.3.1. Conditioning effects

The repeated measure ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between the measurement and the US valence, $F(1,127) = 59.65, p < .001, \eta^2 = 0.05$. CSs paired with positive USs were evaluated more positively after ($M = 6.38, SD = 1.83$) than before ($M = 5.35, SD = 1.65$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = -1.03, t(127) = -6.74, p_{Tukey} < .001$. CSs paired with negative USs were evaluated more negatively after ($M = 4.75, SD = 1.67$) than before ($M = 5.36, SD = 1.58$) the EC task, $M_{difference} = 0.61, t(127) = 4.03, p_{Tukey} < .001$. We also controlled for a difference in evaluations between CSs before the conditioning, and the analysis was not significant, $M_{difference} = -0.01, t(127) = -0.01, p_{Tukey} = 1$.

## 5.4. Effect of emotional strategies and contingency memory

### 5.4.1. Model 1: negative conditioning

Analysis revealed an effect of contingency memory on negative conditioning; $b = -0.18, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.36, -0.01], t(125) = -2.05, p = .042$. The more participants remembered the CS-US pairs, the stronger the EC effect. No effect was found for the reappraisal strategies; $b = -0.02, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.20, 0.15], t(125) = -0.26, p = .798$; nor for the suppression strategies; $b = 0.08, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.10, 0.25], t(125) = 0.85, p = .397$.

### 5.4.2. Model 2: positive conditioning

Analysis revealed an effect of contingency memory on positive conditioning; $b = 0.17, 95\% \text{ CI } [0.01, 0.34], t(125) = 2.09, p = .039$ and for the reappraisal strategies; $b = 0.30, 95\% \text{ CI } [0.14, 0.47], t(125) = 3.64, p < .001$. The more participants remembered CS-US pairs, and the more they reported using reappraisal strategies, the stronger the EC effect. In contrast, no effect was found for the suppression strategies; $b = 0.15, 95\% \text{ CI } [-0.02, 0.31], t(125) = 1.75, p = .083$ (Fig. 2).

## 5.5. Discussion

In this second study, we again observed a positive and negative EC effect and a correlation between the contingency memory of the CS-US pairs and the EC effect. Our main focus was to explore the role of two emotional regulation strategies particularly studied in the emotion regulation literature: emotional suppression and reappraisal. Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not observe that the frequency of use of emotional suppression would predict stronger evaluative conditioning. However, positive conditioning was predicted by reappraisal. The more an individual declared to be prompt to use reappraisal, the stronger the positive EC effect.

Cognitive reappraisal is generally seen as a suitable strategy for decreasing negative emotions and/or increasing positive emotions. For example, a meta-analysis found that reappraisal leads to more successful regulation (Webb et al., 2012). In the short term, reappraisal decreases reports of negative emotions and increases reports of positive emotions (Denny & Ochsner, 2014; Gross, 1998; Jackson et al., 2000). In the long term, it is associated with higher psychological well-being and fewer psychopathological symptoms (Aldao et al., 2010; Cludius et al., 2020; Gross & John, 2003). It allows us to argue that the more individuals are prompt to use an effective emotion regulation strategy such as reappraisal, the more they can detect and/or transfer the positivity from the US to a CS.

# 6. General discussion

With these studies, we wanted (1) to replicate the results suggested by previous literature that emphasizes that difficulties in emotional regulation are associated with stronger evaluative conditioning effects and (2) to explore the roles of different emotion regulation strategies in that relationship.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Effect of reappraisal on positive conditioning; with 95 % confidence interval.</figcaption></figure>
First, the integrative analysis of two independent datasets using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale allowed us to observe weaker positive EC effects among participants who reported having the most difficulties in emotional regulation. These results do not replicate previous ones where there was an increase in negative conditioning when the USs were pictures eliciting a medium or strong negative response in participants with regulation difficulties (Zerhouni & Lepage, 2018). Yet, we consider that these two results share theoretical consistency. Poor emotional regulation would be associated with greater sensitivity to negative conditioning, especially when unconditional stimuli are mild to strong. But it would also be - and this is what we observe here - associated with a lower sensitivity to positive conditioning in general. This is in line with the generalized unsafety theory of stress (Brosschot et al., 2016, 2018). It states that stress response is a default response of the organism, which is inhibited only when safety cues are perceived. These safety signals are learned cues that predict stress-free periods (Christianson et al., 2008). Poor emotion regulators could experience unsafety due to a focus on negative USs that prevents them from directing attention to positively valenced USs. And in return, it would diminish their ability to transfer the positive valence to CSs, resulting in a lower positive EC effect. Alternatively, poor emotion regulators could be less able to learn safe cues from their environment, which results in an impaired positive EC.

Second, we tried to determine whether some strategies seemed more particularly linked to the EC effect. We focused on cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression, two widely used strategies by people and well-known by researchers. To do so, we conducted another study using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire that assesses them. We found that the more frequently the reappraisal was used, the stronger the positive EC effect. No effect was found for the suppression strategy. Because reappraisal is one of the most efficient and suitable strategies, people who use it frequently regulate their emotions better and are probably better at detecting a positive stimulus and transferring its valence to a subsequent CS. Moreover, the results showing that reappraisal is linked to a greater positive EC effect contrast with previous ones that demonstrated that participants instructed to use some emotion regulation during an EC task, including reappraisal, were less conditioned (Gawronski et al., 2015). We hypothesized that it was due to the double-tasking situation where participants were placed (i.e., regulating emotions and following the EC procedure), which is known to impair EC (Mierop et al., 2020).

# 7. Limitations and conclusions

Our studies yield some limitations. First, they are correlational and do not fully test our theoretical hypothesis that the US elicits a specific emotion attached to the paired CS during the learning phase. Future experimental design studies should identify where and when emotion regulation moderates the EC effect. Second, our theoretical hypothesis goes beyond what we tested here. Therefore, exploring other aspects of emotional treatment could be informative. For example, one could examine the effects of facets of personality disorders such as Emotional lability, Anxiousness, or Restricted affectivity from the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Third, the samples of studies 1a and 2 are composed only of first-year psychology students. Although the sample size of the ERQ study is large, replication on a larger and more representative sample would allow us to be more confident about our results. Fourth, we used questionnaire measurement tools which, although interesting and widely used, have some biases. On the one hand, we only evaluate two strategies where many others could be involved. For example, Rumination, is "repetitively and passively focusing on symptoms of distress and on the possible causes and consequences of these symptoms" (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008) and is strongly associated with several psychopathologies (Aldao et al., 2010). We can hypothesize that high Rumination would be linked to a lower EC effect in general, notably due to a depletion of working memory resources (Curci et al., 2013). In addition, rumination appears to mediate the relationship between neuroticism and Anxiety (Chen et al., 2020). Exploring its effects could provide a better understanding of how personality and emotion regulations are linked to evaluative learning. On the other hand, these questionnaires are sometimes ambiguous or difficult to understand for the participants. Then further research should try to replicate these results using other measures (e.g., physiological measures, other questionnaires) to generalize the findings. Finally, these questionnaires were completed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation constitutes a potentially important stress factor that could have impacted the participants' emotional regulation capacities or their perception of them and their responses. However, we can also argue that having individuals under stress only exacerbated the degree to which they implemented chronic regulation strategies, and thus had minimal impact on our results.

To conclude, we found a moderation between emotion regulation and evaluative conditioning, particularly with positive valence. These results allow us to assume that the EC effect is related to how people deal with their emotions and the information they give about the environment. It opens new questions, such as when, where and for whom the different processes involved in emotion regulation correlate with EC and if it effectively has a causal role in the EC effect.

# CRediT authorship contribution statement

The study was conceptualized and designed by TB and OZ. The experiment was performed by TB. The data were analyzed independently by TB and OZ. This article was drafted by TB and revised by OZ, JR, and TB.

# Ethical approval and consent to participate

Studies on human subjects that are not part of biological or medical protocol are not subject (in France) to the Jardé law. There is no obligation to have recourse to an ethics committee for studies in psychology under French law. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. We cannot provide a name of an
First, the integrative analysis of two independent datasets using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale allowed us to observe weaker positive EC effects among participants who reported having the most difficulties in emotional regulation. These results do not replicate previous ones where there was an increase in negative conditioning when the USs were pictures eliciting a medium or strong negative response in participants with regulation difficulties (Zerhouni & Lepage, 2018). Yet, we consider that these two results share theoretical consistency. Poor emotional regulation would be associated with greater sensitivity to negative conditioning, especially when unconditional stimuli are mild to strong. But it would also be - and this is what we observe here - associated with a lower sensitivity to positive conditioning in general. This is in line with the generalized unsafety theory of stress (Brosschot et al., 2016, 2018). It states that stress response is a default response of the organism, which is inhibited only when safety cues are perceived. These safety signals are learned cues that predict stress-free periods (Christianson et al., 2008). Poor emotion regulators could experience unsafety due to a focus on negative USs that prevents them from directing attention to positively valenced USs. And in return, it would diminish their ability to transfer the positive valence to CSs, resulting in a lower positive EC effect. Alternatively, poor emotion regulators could be less able to learn safe cues from their environment, which results in an impaired positive EC.

Second, we tried to determine whether some strategies seemed more particularly linked to the EC effect. We focused on cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression, two widely used strategies by people and well-known by researchers. To do so, we conducted another study using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire that assesses them. We found that the more frequently the reappraisal was used, the stronger the positive EC effect. No effect was found for the suppression strategy. Because reappraisal is one of the most efficient and suitable strategies, people who use it frequently regulate their emotions better and are probably better at detecting a positive stimulus and transferring its valence to a subsequent CS. Moreover, the results showing that reappraisal is linked to a greater positive EC effect contrast with previous ones that demonstrated that participants instructed to use some emotion regulation during an EC task, including reappraisal, were less conditioned (Gawronski et al., 2015). We hypothesized that it was due to the double-tasking situation where participants were placed (i.e., regulating emotions and following the EC procedure), which is known to impair EC (Mierop et al., 2020).

# 7. Limitations and conclusions

Our studies yield some limitations. First, they are correlational and do not fully test our theoretical hypothesis that the US elicits a specific emotion attached to the paired CS during the learning phase. Future experimental design studies should identify where and when emotion regulation moderates the EC effect. Second, our theoretical hypothesis goes beyond what we tested here. Therefore, exploring other aspects of emotional treatment could be informative. For example, one could examine the effects of facets of personality disorders such as Emotional lability, Anxiousness, or Restricted affectivity from the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Third, the samples of studies 1a and 2 are composed only of first-year psychology students. Although the sample size of the ERQ study is large, replication on a larger and more representative sample would allow us to be more confident about our results. Fourth, we used questionnaire measurement tools which, although interesting and widely used, have some biases. On the one hand, we only evaluate two strategies where many others could be involved. For example, Rumination, is "repetitively and passively focusing on symptoms of distress and on the possible causes and consequences of these symptoms" (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008) and is strongly associated with several psychopathologies (Aldao et al., 2010). We can hypothesize that high Rumination would be linked to a lower EC effect in general, notably due to a depletion of working memory resources (Curci et al., 2013). In addition, rumination appears to mediate the relationship between neuroticism and Anxiety (Chen et al., 2020). Exploring its effects could provide a better understanding of how personality and emotion regulations are linked to evaluative learning. On the other hand, these questionnaires are sometimes ambiguous or difficult to understand for the participants. Then further research should try to replicate these results using other measures (e.g., physiological measures, other questionnaires) to generalize the findings. Finally, these questionnaires were completed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation constitutes a potentially important stress factor that could have impacted the participants' emotional regulation capacities or their perception of them and their responses. However, we can also argue that having individuals under stress only exacerbated the degree to which they implemented chronic regulation strategies, and thus had minimal impact on our results.

To conclude, we found a moderation between emotion regulation and evaluative conditioning, particularly with positive valence. These results allow us to assume that the EC effect is related to how people deal with their emotions and the information they give about the environment. It opens new questions, such as when, where and for whom the different processes involved in emotion regulation correlate with EC and if it effectively has a causal role in the EC effect.

# CRediT authorship contribution statement

The study was conceptualized and designed by TB and OZ. The experiment was performed by TB. The data were analyzed independently by TB and OZ. This article was drafted by TB and revised by OZ, JR, and TB.

# Ethical approval and consent to participate

Studies on human subjects that are not part of biological or medical protocol are not subject (in France) to the Jardé law. There is no obligation to have recourse to an ethics committee for studies in psychology under French law. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. We cannot provide a name of an
ethical committee that approved this study since no ethical committee existed at Université Paris Nanterre when the studies were conducted. However, ethical procedures typical to the Université Paris Nanterre were followed. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and none chose to withdraw from the procedure.

We confirm all patient/personal identifiers have been removed or anonymized so the patient/person(s) described are not identifiable and cannot be identified through any detail of the dataset.

**Funding**

This research did not receive funding from any organization.

**Competing interests**

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

**Data Availability**

I have shared the link to my data on the manuscript.

**Acknowledgements**

We would like to thank everyone who participated in this study, particularly Elyne Vila Nova and Clara Degouy.

**Appendix A. Study 1a conditioned stimuli**

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
ethical committee that approved this study since no ethical committee existed at Université Paris Nanterre when the studies were conducted. However, ethical procedures typical to the Université Paris Nanterre were followed. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and none chose to withdraw from the procedure.

We confirm all patient/personal identifiers have been removed or anonymized so the patient/person(s) described are not identifiable and cannot be identified through any detail of the dataset.

**Funding**

This research did not receive funding from any organization.

**Competing interests**

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

**Data Availability**

I have shared the link to my data on the manuscript.

**Acknowledgements**

We would like to thank everyone who participated in this study, particularly Elyne Vila Nova and Clara Degouy.

**Appendix A. Study 1a conditioned stimuli**

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
## Appendix B. IAPS selection

<table><thead><tr><th>Study</th><th>Type of US</th><th>IAPS number</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Study 1a</td><td>Positive</td><td>2370; 5000; 8030; 8185</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>2722; 3500; 9001; 9410</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Study 1b and 2</td><td>Positive</td><td>2598; 2306; 2501; 2154</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>9902; 3550; 2730; 2053</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix C. Correlation matrix of the different DERS dimensions without awareness

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Nonacceptance</th><th>Goal</th><th>Impulse</th><th>Strategies</th><th>Clarity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Nonacceptance</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Goal</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.50</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Impulse</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.57</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Strategies</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.039</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.050</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Clarity</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.63</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

## References

Aldao, A. (2013). The future of emotion regulation research: Capturing context. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 8(2), 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459518

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. *Clinical Psychology Review*, 30 (2), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Bardeen, J. R., Fergus, T. A., & Orcutt, H. K. (2012). An examination of the latent structure of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. *Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment*, 34, 382-392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-9280-y

Brosschot, J. F., Verkuil, B., & Thayer, J. F. (2016). The default response to uncertainty and the importance of perceived safety in anxiety and stress: An evolution-theoretical perspective. *Journal of Anxiety Disorders*, 41, 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.04.012

Brosschot, J., Verkuil, B., & Thayer, J. F. (2018). Generalized unsafety theory of stress: Unsafe environments and conditions, and the default stress response. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 15(3), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030464 (MDPI AG).

Chen, X., Pu, J., Shi, W., & Zhou, Y. (2020). The impact of neuroticism on symptoms of anxiety and depression in elderly adults: The mediating role of rumination. *Current Psychology*, 39, 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9740-3

Christianson, J. P., Benison, A. M., Jennings, J., Sandmark, E. K., Amat, J., Kaufman, R. D., Baratta, M. V., Paul, E. D., Campeau, S., Watkins, L. R., Barth, D. S., & Maier, S. F. (2008). The sensory insular cortex mediates the stress-buffering effects of safety signals but not behavioral control. *Journal of Neuroscience*, 28(50), 13703-13711. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4270-08.2008

Cludius, B., Mennin, D., & Ehring, T. (2020). Emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic process. *Emotion*, 20(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000646

Corneille, O., & Stahl, C. (2019). Associative attitude learning: A closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, 23(2), 161-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318763261

Curci, A., Lanciano, T., Soleti, E., & Rimé, B. (2013). Negative emotional experiences arouse rumination and affect working memory capacity. *Emotion*, 13(5), 867-880. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032492

Dan-Glauser, E. S., & Scherer, K. R. (2013). The difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS). *Swiss Journal of Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000093

Dawel, A., Wright, L., Irons, J., et al. (2017). Perceived emotion genuineness: Normative ratings for popular facial expression stimuli and the development of perceived-as-genuine and perceived-as-fake sets. *Behavior Research Methods*, 49, 1539-1562. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0813-2

De Houwer, J. (2007). A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. *The Spanish Journal of Psychology*, 10(2), 230.

Denny, B. T., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Behavioral effects of longitudinal training in cognitive reappraisal. *Emotion*, 14(2), 425-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035276

De-Wit, L., Huygelier, H., Van der Hallen, R., Chamberlain, R., & Wagemans, J. (2017). Developing the Leuven embedded figures test (L-EFT): testing The stimulus features that influence embedding. *PeerJ*, 5, Article e2862. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.j.2862

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). *The psychology of attitudes*. Harcourt brace Jovanovich college publishers.

Gawronski, B., & Mitchell, D. G. (2014). Simultaneous conditioning of valence and arousal. *Cognition & Emotion*, 28(4), 577-595.

Gawronski, B., Mitchell, D. G. V., & Balas, R. (2015). Is evaluative conditioning really uncontrollable? A comparative test of three emotion-focused strategies to prevent the acquisition of conditioned preferences. *Emotion*, 15(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000078

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is "service with a smile" enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 96(1), 38-55.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. *Review of General Psychology*, 2(3), 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

Gross, J. J. (2007). *Handbook of emotion regulation*. New York: The Guilford Press.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 85(2), 348.

Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), *Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health* (pp. 13-35). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11468-001.
## Appendix B. IAPS selection

<table><thead><tr><th>Study</th><th>Type of US</th><th>IAPS number</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Study 1a</td><td>Positive</td><td>2370; 5000; 8030; 8185</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>2722; 3500; 9001; 9410</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Study 1b and 2</td><td>Positive</td><td>2598; 2306; 2501; 2154</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>9902; 3550; 2730; 2053</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix C. Correlation matrix of the different DERS dimensions without awareness

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Nonacceptance</th><th>Goal</th><th>Impulse</th><th>Strategies</th><th>Clarity</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Nonacceptance</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Goal</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.50</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Impulse</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.57</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Strategies</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.039</td><td>0.017</td><td>0.050</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Clarity</td><td>Pearson's r</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.63</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>p-value</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>

## References

Aldao, A. (2013). The future of emotion regulation research: Capturing context. *Perspectives on Psychological Science*, 8(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459518

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. *Clinical Psychology Review*, 30(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004

Bardeen, J. R., Fergus, T. A., & Orcutt, H. K. (2012). An examination of the latent structure of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. *Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment*, 34, 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-9280-y

Brosschot, J. F., Verkuil, B., & Thayer, J. F. (2016). The default response to uncertainty and the importance of perceived safety in anxiety and stress: An evolution-theoretical perspective. *Journal of Anxiety Disorders*, 41, 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.04.012

Brosschot, J., Verkuil, B., & Thayer, J. F. (2018). Generalized unsafety theory of stress: Unsafe environments and conditions, and the default stress response. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 15(3), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030464 (MDPI AG).

Chen, X., Pu, J., Shi, W., & Zhou, Y. (2020). The impact of neuroticism on symptoms of anxiety and depression in elderly adults: The mediating role of rumination. *Current Psychology*, 39, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9740-3

Christianson, J. P., Benison, A. M., Jennings, J., Sandmark, E. K., Amat, J., Kaufman, R. D., Baratta, M. V., Paul, E. D., Campeau, S., Watkins, L. R., Barth, D. S., & Maier, S. F. (2008). The sensory insular cortex mediates the stress-buffering effects of safety signals but not behavioral control. *Journal of Neuroscience*, 28(50), 13703–13711. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4270-08.2008

Cludius, B., Mennin, D., & Ehring, T. (2020). Emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic process. *Emotion*, 20(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000646

Corneille, O., & Stahl, C. (2019). Associative attitude learning: A closer look at evidence and how it relates to attitude models. *Personality and Social Psychology Review*, 23(2), 161–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318763261

Curci, A., Lanciano, T., Soleti, E., & Rimé, B. (2013). Negative emotional experiences arouse rumination and affect working memory capacity. *Emotion*, 13(5), 867–880. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032492

Dan-Glauser, E. S., & Scherer, K. R. (2013). The difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS). *Swiss Journal of Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000093

Dawel, A., Wright, L., Irons, J., et al. (2017). Perceived emotion genuineness: Normative ratings for popular facial expression stimuli and the development of perceived-as-genuine and perceived-as-fake sets. *Behavior Research Methods*, 49, 1539–1562. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0813-2

De Houwer, J. (2007). A conceptual and theoretical analysis of evaluative conditioning. *The Spanish Journal of Psychology*, 10(2), 230.

Denny, B. T., & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Behavioral effects of longitudinal training in cognitive reappraisal. *Emotion*, 14(2), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035276

De-Wit, L., Huygelier, H., Van der Hallen, R., Chamberlain, R., & Wagemans, J. (2017). Developing the Leuven embedded figures test (L-EFT): testing The stimulus features that influence embedding. *PeerJ*, 5, Article e2862. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.j.2862

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). *The psychology of attitudes*. Harcourt brace Jovanovich college publishers.

Gawronski, B., & Mitchell, D. G. (2014). Simultaneous conditioning of valence and arousal. *Cognition & Emotion*, 28(4), 577–595.

Gawronski, B., Mitchell, D. G. V., & Balas, R. (2015). Is evaluative conditioning really uncontrollable? A comparative test of three emotion-focused strategies to prevent the acquisition of conditioned preferences. *Emotion*, 15(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000078

Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., Mattila, A. S., Jansen, K. J., & Sideman, L. A. (2005). Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*, 96(1), 38–55.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. *Review of General Psychology*, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271

Gross, J. J. (2007). *Handbook of emotion regulation*. New York: The Guilford Press.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 85(2), 348.

Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), *Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health* (pp. 13–35). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11468-001.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), *Handbook of emotion regulation* (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press.

Guyer, J. J., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2015). Attitudes and behavior (2nd ed.). *2. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences*.

Hallion, L. S., Steinman, S. A., Tolin, D. F., & Diefenbach, G. J. (2018). Psychometric properties of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS) and Its short forms in adults with emotional disorders. *Frontiers in Psychology, 9*. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00539

Heeren, A., Douilliez, C., Peschard, V., Debrauwere, L., & Philippot, P. (2011). Cross-cultural validity of the five facets mindfulness questionnaire: Adaptation and validation in a French-speaking sample. *European Review of Applied Psychology, 61*(3), 147–151.

Hütter, M., & Sweldens, S. (2018). Dissociating controllable and uncontrollable effects of affective stimuli on attitudes and consumption. *Journal of Consumer Research, 45*(2), 320–349.

Jackson, D., Malmstadt, J., Larson, C., & Davidson, R. (2000). Suppression and enhancement of emotional responses to unpleasant pictures. *Psychophysiology, 37*(4), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3740515

Juneau, C., Shankland, R., & Dambrun, M. (2020). Trait and state equanimity: The effect of mindfulness-based meditation practice. *Mindfulness, 11*, 1802–1812.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01397-4

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. *NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, 1*(39–58), 3.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. *Emotion, 5*(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113 (Ed.).

Mierop, A., Maurage, P., & Corneille, O. (2020). Cognitive load impairs evaluative conditioning, even when individual CS and US stimuli are successfully encoded. *International Review of Social Psychology, 33*(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.339

Moran, T., Nudler, Y., & Bar Anan, Y. (2022). Evaluative conditioning: Past, present, and future. *Annual Review of Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031815

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. *Perspective on Psychological Science, 3*(5), 400–424.

Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9*(5), 242–249.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., & Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. *The Journal of Social Psychology, 141*(4), 523–536.

Till, B. D., Stanley, S. M., & Priluck, R. (2008). Classical conditioning and celebrity endorsers: An examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction. *Psychology & Marketing, 25*, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20205

Vogel, T., Hütter, M., & Gebauer, J. E. (2019). Is evaluative conditioning moderated by big five personality traits? *Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10*(1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617740193

Wang, K., Goldenberg, A., Dorison, C. A., et al. (2021). A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. *Nature Human Behaviour, 5*, 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01173-3

Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. *Psychological Bulletin, 138*(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600

Zerhouni, O., & Lepage, J. (2018). “Paint it black”: Chronic emotion regulation difficulties enhances evaluative conditioning effect when conditioned stimuli are paired with highly arousing negative unconditioned stimuli. *Journal of Individual Differences, 39*(4), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000264
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), *Handbook of emotion regulation* (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press.

Guyer, J. J., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2015). Attitudes and behavior (2nd ed.). *2. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences*.

Hallion, L. S., Steinman, S. A., Tolin, D. F., & Diefenbach, G. J. (2018). Psychometric properties of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale (DERS) and Its short forms in adults with emotional disorders. *Frontiers in Psychology, 9*. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00539

Heeren, A., Douilliez, C., Peschard, V., Debrauwere, L., & Philippot, P. (2011). Cross-cultural validity of the five facets mindfulness questionnaire: Adaptation and validation in a French-speaking sample. *European Review of Applied Psychology, 61*(3), 147–151.

Hütter, M., & Sweldens, S. (2018). Dissociating controllable and uncontrollable effects of affective stimuli on attitudes and consumption. *Journal of Consumer Research, 45*(2), 320–349.

Jackson, D., Malmstadt, J., Larson, C., & Davidson, R. (2000). Suppression and enhancement of emotional responses to unpleasant pictures. *Psychophysiology, 37*(4), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3740515

Juneau, C., Shankland, R., & Dambrun, M. (2020). Trait and state equanimity: The effect of mindfulness-based meditation practice. *Mindfulness, 11*, 1802–1812.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01397-4

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International affective picture system (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings. *NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, 1*(39–58), 3.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. *Emotion, 5*(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113 (Ed.).

Mierop, A., Maurage, P., & Corneille, O. (2020). Cognitive load impairs evaluative conditioning, even when individual CS and US stimuli are successfully encoded. *International Review of Social Psychology, 33*(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.339

Moran, T., Nudler, Y., & Bar Anan, Y. (2022). Evaluative conditioning: Past, present, and future. *Annual Review of Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031815

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. *Perspective on Psychological Science, 3*(5), 400–424.

Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9*(5), 242–249.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., & Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. *The Journal of Social Psychology, 141*(4), 523–536.

Till, B. D., Stanley, S. M., & Priluck, R. (2008). Classical conditioning and celebrity endorsers: An examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction. *Psychology & Marketing, 25*, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20205

Vogel, T., Hütter, M., & Gebauer, J. E. (2019). Is evaluative conditioning moderated by big five personality traits? *Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10*(1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617740193

Wang, K., Goldenberg, A., Dorison, C. A., et al. (2021). A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. *Nature Human Behaviour, 5*, 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01173-5

Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. *Psychological Bulletin, 138*(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600

Zerhouni, O., & Lepage, J. (2018). “Paint it black”: Chronic emotion regulation difficulties enhances evaluative conditioning effect when conditioned stimuli are paired with highly arousing negative unconditioned stimuli. *Journal of Individual Differences, 39*(4), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000264