ABSTRACT Pavlovian aversive conditioning is a fundamental form of learning helping organisms survive in their environment. Previous research has suggested that organisms are prepared to

preferentially learn to fear stimuli that have posed threats to survival across evolution. Here, we examined whether enhanced Pavlovian aversive conditioning can occur to stimuli that are

relevant to the organism’s concerns beyond biological and evolutionary considerations, and whether such preferential learning is modulated by inter-individual differences in affect and

motivation. Seventy-two human participants performed a spatial cueing task where the goal-relevance of initially neutral stimuli was experimentally manipulated. They subsequently underwent a

learning to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant stimuli. Participants with high achievement motivation more readily acquired a conditioned response to goal-relevant compared with

goal-irrelevant stimuli than did participants with lower achievement motivation. However, no difference was found between goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant stimuli during extinction. These

findings suggest that stimuli that are detected as relevant to the organism can induce facilitated Pavlovian aversive conditioning even though they hold no inherent threat value and no

biological evolutionary significance, and that the occurrence of such learning bias is critically dependent on inter-individual differences in the organism’s concerns, such as achievement

motivation. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS COSTLY AVOIDANCE OF PAVLOVIAN FEAR STIMULI AND THE TEMPORAL DYNAMICS OF ITS DECISION PROCESS Article Open access 21 April 2022 SEX

DIFFERENCES IN MOTIVATIONAL BIASES OVER INSTRUMENTAL ACTIONS Article Open access 08 October 2024 ADOLESCENTS EXHIBIT REDUCED PAVLOVIAN BIASES ON INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING Article Open access 25

September 2020 INTRODUCTION Pavlovian aversive conditioning is a fundamental form of learning in the animal kingdom, being ubiquitous across a wide variety of species ranging from simple

(e.g. fruit fly) to more complex (e.g. human) organisms.1 It consists of both the learning process and procedure whereby an environmental stimulus (the conditioned stimulus) acquires the

ability to elicit a preparatory response (the conditioned response) by virtue of a single or repeated contingent pairing with a biologically significant aversive event (the unconditioned

stimulus).2,3 However, not all stimuli are equally associable in Pavlovian aversive conditioning.4 Previous research has shown that specific classes of evolutionarily threat-relevant

stimuli, such as snakes, angry faces, or outgroup faces, are more rapidly5,6 and persistently6,7,8,9 associated with an aversive outcome than nonthreatening stimuli, such as flowers, happy

faces, or ingroup faces.10,11 These preferential associations have generally been interpreted as evidence for the preparedness12 and fear module11 theories, which posit that organisms are

biologically prepared to associate stimuli that have posed threats to the species’ survival across evolution with aversive events. At variance with these evolutionary theories, an

alternative framework deriving from appraisal theories of emotion13,14 asserts that preferential emotional learning is not driven by a threat-specific mechanism, but by a more general

mechanism of relevance detection.15,16 Relevance detection is a rapid and adaptive process that determines whether a stimulus encountered in the environment is relevant to the organism’s

concerns, such as their goals, needs, motives, or values.13,14,16,17,18 Importantly, this proposal allows for incorporating the findings of preferential Pavlovian aversive conditioning to

threat-relevant stimuli, as these stimuli are highly relevant for the organism’s survival, but also generates new testable predictions: Stimuli that are detected as relevant to the

organism’s concerns benefit from preferential emotional learning, regardless of their valence and evolutionary status per se. In agreement with this hypothesis, we have recently shown that,

similar to threat-relevant stimuli (angry faces and snakes), positive stimuli with biological relevance (baby faces and erotic stimuli) are likewise persistently associated with an aversive

outcome (electric stimulation) during Pavlovian aversive conditioning, thereby demonstrating that preferential Pavlovian aversive conditioning is not restricted to negative threat-related

stimuli but extends to positive relevant stimuli.16 Nonetheless, this study did not address the question of whether the stimulus’ evolutionary history might be a key ingredient in this

preferential emotional learning. Existing evidence on this issue is mixed: whereas some studies found a similar enhanced resistance to extinction of learned threat to both biological

(snakes) and cultural (pointed guns) threats,19,20 other studies observed a greater persistence of learned threat to threat-relevant stimuli from phylogenetic origin than from ontogenetic

origin.21,22 Accordingly, whether enhanced emotional learning is confined to evolutionarily relevant stimuli or encompasses stimuli with high relevance to the organism beyond biological and

evolutionary considerations remains to be better elucidated. A key assumption of the relevance detection model is that emotional learning is largely affected by individual differences in

affect and motivation. The process of relevance detection is inextricably tied to the organism’s concerns, the salience and priority of which may flexibly and rapidly change based on current

environmental contingencies, and which are likely to vary across individuals.14,17,23 As a result, the same stimulus may potentially produce a learning bias for a given individual, but not

for another one, if these two individuals differ according to their current concerns, and hence the way in which they appraise the stimulus at stake. In line with this view, inter-individual

differences are inherent and highly prevalent in Pavlovian conditioning,2,24 as reflected by a substantial variability across individuals in this learning process as a function of

biological, experiential, or personality factors, as well as affective or cognitive biases.24,25,26,27,28,29,30 Despite these initial attempts to consider inter-individual differences for

yielding a better understanding of emotional learning in humans, their contribution to Pavlovian conditioning, along with the underlying mechanisms thereof, remain yet poorly understood.24

Here, we therefore aimed to investigate whether enhanced emotional learning could occur to stimuli that are relevant to the organism’s concerns independently of their intrinsic evolutionary

significance, as well as the modulatory role of inter-individual differences therein. To this end, we used initially neutral stimuli (i.e. geometric figures) and experimentally manipulated

their relevance for task goals in a spatial cueing task31 (Fig. 1), some stimuli being goal-relevant by predicting target location (goal-relevant valid stimuli) or predicting the opposite

location relative to the target (goal-relevant invalid stimuli), and others goal-irrelevant by being nonpredictive of target location (goal-irrelevant stimuli). We subsequently used these

stimuli as conditioned stimuli (CS) in a differential Pavlovian aversive conditioning paradigm. In this paradigm, one stimulus (CS+) from each of the three stimulus categories was

systematically paired with a mild electric stimulation (unconditioned stimulus (US)) during the acquisition phase, whereas the other stimulus (CS−) from each stimulus category was never

associated with it. In the following extinction phase, the US was no longer delivered. Skin conductance response (SCR) was measured continuously throughout the entire conditioning procedure.

The conditioned response (CR) was operationalised as the differential SCR to the CS+ minus CS− from the same stimulus category9,16 and used as an index of learning. To assess the role of

inter-individual differences, we examined the influence of participants’ achievement motivation on Pavlovian aversive learning to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant stimuli. Achievement

motivation refers to the need or concern to develop or demonstrate high ability, and to attain a standard of excellence or a success goal.32,33 Inter-individual differences in achievement

motivation have been reported to affect how individuals appraise the relevance of objects and situations. For instance, when confronted with achievement-related situations, individuals high

in achievement motivation have been shown to appraise these situations as more important than did individuals lower in this trait.34 Moreover, individuals with a high level of achievement

motivation have been reported to be intrinsically motivated to perform a task for its own sake.35,36 In light of this evidence and given that the spatial cueing task involves an achievement

component related to task performance and success, we inferred that individuals with high achievement motivation would be highly motivated to perform well in this task, thereby attaching

higher relevance to the goal-relevant stimuli and lower relevance to the goal-irrelevant stimuli than individuals with lower achievement motivation because of their respective

informativeness and instrumentality, or lack thereof, for task accomplishment. As preferential emotional learning is generally characterised by a faster acquisition of the conditioned

response and/or an enhanced resistance to extinction of that conditioned response,11,12 these two indicators being considered as equally valid,37 we hypothesised that the conditioned

response to goal-relevant stimuli would be (a) acquired faster and (b) more resistant to extinction than the conditioned response to goal-irrelevant stimuli. Furthermore, we predicted that

inter-individual differences in achievement motivation would modulate the acquisition readiness and the resistance to extinction of the conditioned response to goal-relevant stimuli compared

with goal-irrelevant stimuli, with higher achievement motivation leading to a greater difference in the conditioned response to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant stimuli during early

acquisition and during extinction. RESULTS SPATIAL CUEING TASK The reaction times in the spatial cueing task were analysed using a repeated-measures general linear model (GLM) assuming

compound symmetry covariance structure with stimulus type (to-be-CS+ vs. to be-CS−) and stimulus category (goal-relevant valid vs. goal-relevant invalid vs. goal-irrelevant) as

within-participant categorical factors, and participants’ standardised (_z_-score) achievement motivation score as a continuous predictor. This analysis revealed a marginal trend for the

main effect of stimulus category, _F_(2, 140) = 2.85, _p_ _=_ 0.061, _η_2p = 0.039, 90% confidence interval (CI) [0.000, 0.095]. No other effect was observed (all _F_s < 2.39, all _p_s 

> 0.12, all _η_2ps < 0.033). A polynomial contrast analysis showed a statistically significant linear trend in the reaction times as a function of stimulus category, _F_(1, 70) = 5.41,

_p_ = 0.023, _η_2p = 0.072, 90% CI [0.005, 0.181], indicating increased reaction times in detecting the target from goal-relevant valid cues (_M_ = 496.52 ms, SD = 129.53) to

goal-irrelevant cues (_M_ = 500.92 ms, SD = 147.23) to goal-relevant invalid cues (_M_ = 505.21 ms, SD = 140.12; Fig. 2). This result reflects the occurrence of a cueing validity effect,

hence suggesting that the spatial cueing task triggered attention orienting, although it is important to note that this effect was small. As descriptive analyses revealed the presence of an

outlier in the reaction time data exhibiting slow reaction times in all the conditions, we also performed statistical analyses excluding this outlier. These analyses revealed a statistically

significant main effect of stimulus category, _F_(2, 138) = 3.19, _p_ = 0.044, _η_2p = 0.044, 90% CI [0.0006, 0.103]. No other effect was statistically significant (all _F_s _<_ 2.28,

all _p_s > 0.10, all _η_2ps < 0.032). The linear trend remained statistically significant after the outlier exclusion, _F_(1, 69) = 4.33, _p_ = .041, _η_2p = 0.059, 90% CI [0.001,

0.165]. DIFFERENTIAL PAVLOVIAN AVERSIVE CONDITIONING According to standard practice in the human conditioning literature,9,38 the SCR data (Fig. 3) was analysed separately for each

conditioning phase. The habituation and extinction phases were each analysed with a repeated-measures GLM assuming compound symmetry covariance structure with stimulus category

(goal-relevant valid vs. goal-relevant invalid vs. goal-irrelevant) as a within-participant categorical factor and participants’ standardised achievement motivation score as a continuous

predictor. To examine the differential CR acquisition readiness as a function of the stimulus’ goal-relevance and the modulatory influence of participants’ achievement motivation thereon,

the acquisition phase was split into an early and a late phase, and was analysed using a repeated-measures GLM assuming compound symmetry covariance structure with time (early vs. late) and

stimulus category (goal-relevant valid vs. goal-relevant invalid vs. goal-irrelevant) as within-participant categorical factors, and participants’ standardised achievement motivation score

as a continuous predictor. During habituation, there were no pre-existing differences in differential SCRs to the various stimulus categories, or as a function of participants’ achievement

motivation or the interaction between these factors (all _F_s < 0.48, all _p_s > 0.62, all _η_2ps < 0.007). To assess whether a CR was successfully acquired (i.e. greater SCRs to

the CS+ than to the CS−) in response to the different stimulus categories (goal-relevant valid vs. goal-relevant invalid vs. goal-irrelevant) during acquisition as expected, we performed

one-tailed one-sample _t_-tests on the CR across the entire acquisition phase. These tests showed that the SCRs to the CS+ were larger than to the CS− for goal-relevant valid stimuli,

_t_(71) = 3.32, _p_ < 0.001 (one-tailed), _g_av = 0.547, 95% CI [0.212, 0.891], and goal-relevant invalid stimuli, _t_(71) = 6.09, _p_ < 0.001 (one-tailed), _g_av = 1.005, 95% CI

[0.646, 1.380], thereby indicating successful differential conditioning, whereas they were marginally larger than to the CS− for goal-irrelevant stimuli, _t_(71) = 1.49, _p_ = 0.070

(one-tailed), _g_av = 0.246, 95% CI [−0.082, 0.577]. The apparent less robust differential conditioning to goal-irrelevant stimuli was mainly driven by the existence of an outlier (−5.66 SD

from the mean CR to goal-irrelevant stimuli), who was strongly conditioned to the goal-irrelevant CS-. The one-sample _t_-test excluding this outlier indeed reflected a stronger differential

conditioning to goal-irrelevant stimuli, _t_(70) = 2.90, _p_ = 0.002 (one-tailed), _g_av = 0.482, 95% CI [0.147, 0.824]. Moreover, the GLM revealed a statistically significant main effect

of stimulus category, _F_(2, 140) = 3.81, _p_ = 0.024, _η_2p = 0.052, 90% CI [0.004, 0.113]. A planned contrast analysis showed that goal-relevant valid (contrast weight: +1) and

goal-relevant invalid (contrast weight: +1) stimuli (_M_ = 0.11, SD = 0.15) led to the acquisition of a larger CR than goal-irrelevant stimuli (contrast weight: −2; _M_ = 0.04, SD = 0.23),

_F_(1, 71) = 5.49, _p_ = 0.022, _η_2p = 0.072, 90% CI [0.006, 0.181]. Albeit not statistically significant, we also observed a marginal trend for the interaction between time and stimulus

category, _F_(2, 140) = 2.61, _p_ = 0.077, _η_2p = 0.036, 90% CI [0.000, 0.090], and for the three-way interaction between time, stimulus category, and achievement motivation, _F_(2, 140) = 

2.65, _p_ = 0.074, _η_2p = 0.036, 90% CI [0.000, 0.091]. No other effect reached statistical significance (all _F_s < 1.14, all _p_s > 0.29, all _η_2ps < 0.016). To specifically

test our a priori hypothesis concerning the CR acquisition readiness to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant stimuli and its modulation by inter-individual differences in achievement

motivation, we constructed a contrast comparing the difference between the CR to goal-relevant valid (contrast weight: +1) and goal-relevant invalid (contrast weight: +1) stimuli vs.

goal-irrelevant stimuli (contrast weight: −2) during early acquisition, and tested whether this difference was influenced by participants’ standardised achievement motivation score by means

of a repeated-measures GLM. Consistent with our prediction, this analysis indicated that the difference between the CR to goal-relevant stimuli and the CR to goal-irrelevant stimuli was

modulated by participants’ achievement motivation during early acquisition, _F_(1, 70) = 5.15, _p_ = 0.026, _η_2p = 0.069, 90% CI [0.004, 0.177], with high level of achievement motivation

resulting in a greater difference in CR acquisition readiness between goal-relevant and goal-irrelevant stimuli (Fig. 4a). Further analyses using simple slopes congruently revealed that

participants with high achievement motivation (+1 SD) more readily acquired a CR to goal-relevant stimuli (_M_ = 0.15) than to goal-irrelevant stimuli (_M_ = −0.02), _F_(1, 70) = 8.11, _p_ =

 0.006, _η_2p = 0.104, 90% CI [0.018, 0.222], whereas no statistically significant difference between goal-relevant stimuli (_M_ = 0.11) and goal-irrelevant stimuli (_M_ = 0.13) was observed

for participants with lower achievement motivation (−1 SD), _F_(1, 70) = 0.13, _p_ = 0.717, _η_2p = 0.002, 90% CI [0.000, 0.048] (Fig. 4b). Achievement motivation conversely did not

moderate the difference between the CR to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant stimuli in late acquisition, _F_(1, 70) = 0.62, _p_ = 0.433, _η_2p = 0.009, 90% CI [0.000, 0.076]. Analysis of the

extinction phase showed that the CR did not statistically differ across the three stimulus categories, _F_(2, 140) = 0.54, _p_ _=_ 0.586, _η_2p = 0.008, 90% CI [0.000, 0.037], suggesting a

similar CR extinction to goal-relevant valid, goal-relevant invalid, and goal-irrelevant stimuli. The extinction of the CR was likewise not affected by participants’ achievement motivation

(all _F_s < 0.32, all _p_s > 0.57, all _η_2ps < 0.005). The difference between the CR to goal-relevant stimuli and the CR to goal-irrelevant stimuli was not modulated by

participants’ achievement motivation either, _F_(1, 70) = 0.15, _p_ = 0.696, _η_2p = 0.002, 90% CI [0.000, 0.050]. This result reflects that the CR persistence to goal-relevant compared with

goal-irrelevant stimuli did not statistically differ as a function of participants’ achievement motivation during extinction. DISCUSSION Altogether, our results show that goal-relevant

stimuli induced the acquisition of a larger conditioned response than goal-irrelevant stimuli, thus suggesting stronger Pavlovian aversive conditioning. Most importantly, this effect was

notably driven by inter-individual differences in achievement motivation that modulated the acquisition readiness of the conditioned response to goal-relevant stimuli compared with

goal-irrelevant stimuli, as revealed by an interaction of the stimulus’ goal-relevance with participants’ achievement motivation during early acquisition. Participants with high achievement

motivation more readily acquired a conditioned response to goal-relevant stimuli than to goal-irrelevant stimuli, thus reflecting a learning bias, whereas no learning bias was observed in

participants with lower achievement motivation. This indicates that inter-individual differences can produce enhanced Pavlovian aversive conditioning to the very same stimuli depending on

their relevance to the individual’s current concerns, such as their achievement motive. Such findings dovetail nicely with the relevance detection model15,16 according to which preferential

emotional learning stems from the interaction between the stimulus and the organism’s current concerns, thereby assigning a crucial role to inter-individual differences in enhanced emotional

learning. On the other hand, we failed to observe an enhanced resistance to extinction to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant stimuli, and no modulatory effect of inter-individual differences

in achievement motivation was reported thereon, which is at odds with our predictions. The fact that we found faster Pavlovian aversive conditioning to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant

stimuli in participants high in achievement motivation but not in those lower in achievement motivation may relate to the interplay between the manipulation of stimuli’s relevance for task

goals and participants’ current concerns. The construct of goal-relevance has been suggested to cover at least three partly dissociable but related components:39,40,41 (1) task-relevance,

which pertains to the degree to which a stimulus signals the opportunity of implementing and satisfying a specific goal in a given task, (2) informativeness, which refers to the degree to

which a stimulus provides reliable information about a goal’s satisfaction status, and (3) the impact a stimulus has on the individual’s goals. It has been further advanced that a stimulus

that is task-relevant is likewise goal-relevant in terms of informativeness and impact, whereas it can be goal-relevant in terms of informativeness and/or impact without being

task-relevant.40 Importantly, task-relevance however differs from current concerns in that it refers to task instructions, and begins and ends in task context; in contrast, current concerns

involve a state of commitment about their satisfaction that extends across various contexts and situations beyond a particular task.18,42 Accordingly, the stimuli’s goal-relevance may have

generalised beyond the spatial cueing task for participants with high achievement motivation because of the stimuli’s informativeness and/or impact to their achievement-related concerns,

whereas it ended with the spatial cueing task for participants with lower achievement motivation, the goal-relevant stimuli no longer being task-relevant and of higher relevance to their

current concerns than the goal-irrelevant stimuli. Critically, the facilitated Pavlovian aversive conditioning to goal-relevant than to goal-irrelevant stimuli observed in participants with

high achievement motivation furthermore suggests that stimuli that are detected as relevant to the organism’s concerns can also be readily conditioned to threat even though they hold no

intrinsic biological evolutionary significance. This finding reflects that preferential emotional learning is not restricted to stimuli that are relevant in a phylogenetic sense. In this

respect, the current study concurs with previous research on human conditioning reporting enhanced Pavlovian aversive learning to ontogenetic threat-relevant stimuli.19,20 It even adds to

these earlier reports by showing that initially neutral stimuli devoid of any pre-existing threat value that have acquired goal-relevance can likewise be readily associated with a naturally

aversive event in individuals high in achievement motivation. In that sense, our results suggest that preferential emotional learning may be underlain by a relevance detection mechanism, as

opposed to a fear- or threat-specific mechanism, allowing the organism to adaptively and flexibly produce a learning bias towards specific stimuli depending on their relevance to the

organism’s current concerns.15,16 Nonetheless, the fact that we did not find effects of stimulus’ goal-relevance during extinction suggests that the preferential aversive learning to

goal-relevant stimuli as a function of inter-individual differences in achievement motivation was rather modest and transient. This negative finding notably departs from the greater

resistance to extinction to threat-relevant stimuli than to threat-irrelevant stimuli typically reported in the human conditioning literature.10,11 Although the present experiment indicates

that goal-relevant stimuli can produce facilitated Pavlovian aversive conditioning relative to goal-irrelevant stimuli even if they have no inherent threat value when considering achievement

motivation, it appears that the effects of goal-relevance observed therein are likely to be smaller than those usually obtained with threat-relevant stimuli. It is worth noting, however,

that such potential difference is fully consistent with our general framework supporting the relevance detection hypothesis: whereas threat-relevant stimuli are highly relevant for the

organism’s survival, the goal-relevant stimuli used here were only temporarily relevant for task-related goals in laboratory settings. In other words, because survival is arguably one of the

highest prioritised concerns, survival-relevance can be conceptually considered as a high-value sub-category of goal-relevance. Accordingly, the type of goal-relevant stimuli that we used

in the current study probably held a lower level of relevance to the organism than threat-relevant stimuli, thereby possibly accounting for the occurrence of seemingly weaker effects. In

this context, an interesting avenue for future research would thus be to directly compare the impact of survival-relevance (e.g. using threat-relevant stimuli) to the impact of other types

of goal-relevance on Pavlovian aversive conditioning, while ideally using goal-relevant stimuli of comparable relevance to that of threat-relevant stimuli.16 Our framework would also predict

that individual differences in specific survival-relevant concerns would cause various degrees of preferential aversive learning to threat-related stimuli. Relatedly, the lack of

differential resistance-to-extinction effects may tentatively be imputed to the specifics of our manipulation of goal-relevance. In particular, the use of a spatial cueing task in which the

cues were presented exogenously for a brief amount of time (100 ms) may have precluded participants from forming an explicit and strong knowledge of the associations between the cues and the

stimulus categories, and mainly tapped into implicit processes. Consistent with this proposition, the subjective ratings (see Supplementary Methods) suggested that participants did not

discriminate the differential predictive value of the different stimuli used as cues during the spatial cueing task. In this context, the relevance manipulation was probably too weak to

induce long-lasting effects that could as well influence the persistence of the conditioned response. Future studies are therefore needed to assess whether a stronger relevance manipulation,

for instance by using an endogenous cueing task allowing participants to integrate information about the stimuli’s goal-relevance at a more explicit, controlled level,43 could lead to a

differential resistance-to-extinction effect for goal-relevant stimuli compared with goal-irrelevant stimuli, besides faster Pavlovian aversive learning. Whereas our manipulation of

goal-relevance by means of a spatial cueing task was probably subtle, the subjective ratings collected after extinction (see Supplementary Methods) clearly reflected that participants were

aware of the contingencies between the conditioned stimuli and the unconditioned stimulus, and that the conditioning procedure elicited robust evaluative effects, the CSs+ being evaluated as

less pleasant, more arousing, and more relevant than the CSs− (see Supplementary Figure 1). Presumably, this potent conditioning procedure may have overshadowed “residual” relevance effects

produced by the preceding spatial cueing task, the salience of the CSs+ association with an electric stimulation prevailing over the stimuli’s previously acquired goal-relevance, especially

during the extinction phase. This too could potentially account for the fact that we observed faster Pavlovian aversive conditioning to goal-relevant stimuli than to goal-irrelevant stimuli

in participants high in achievement motivation, but did not find differential extinction effects as a function of stimulus’ goal-relevance and achievement motivation. As goal-relevant

stimuli have been shown to attract attention,18,44 it is possible that the goal-relevant stimuli induced facilitated acquisition of a conditioned response in participants high in achievement

motivation because more attention was allocated to them than to the goal-irrelevant stimuli. Given that the goal-relevant stimuli were also highly predictive with respect to target location

in the spatial cueing task while the goal-irrelevant stimuli were associated with a high uncertainty, this suggestion aligns with the Mackintosh’s45 attentional model of Pavlovian

conditioning. According to this model, the amount of attention devoted to the conditioned stimulus is a core determinant of learning, with predictive stimuli being better attended and hence

more readily conditioned. In this light, attention could provide an underlying mechanism contributing to the occurrence of learning bias to goal-relevant stimuli in participants high in

achievement motivation, thus possibly mirroring the contribution of attention to the enhancement effects of emotion on memory for instance.46 Further consideration of the role of

predictiveness and uncertainty additionally raises the question of whether these constructs may have influenced our findings. Predictiveness and uncertainty have been shown to affect

associative learning and attentional processes,45,47,48,49 in particular through their impact on stimulus’ salience45,49,50 or informativeness,41 as well as are considered as an important

evaluation criterion for determining the relevance of a stimulus in appraisal theories.14 Although the cues’ predictiveness and/or uncertainty may have had a general influence on their

appraised relevance and contributed to our findings, it seems unlikely that our results were solely driven by these factors. Indeed, it remains unclear to what extent such an account can

accommodate the observed effects of inter-individual differences in achievement motivation on the acquisition readiness of the conditioned response to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant

stimuli, without requiring the involvement of additional explanatory mechanisms directly tied to the organism’s achievement-related concerns. Accordingly, it appears that goal-relevance

offers a more parsimonious and plausible key mechanistic explanation of our findings. Further research would nevertheless be necessary to disentangle the specific contributions of

predictiveness and/or uncertainty and of goal-relevance to faster Pavlovian aversive conditioning, for instance by implementing a paradigm enabling the orthogonalisation of these factors.41

Considering that our sample mostly consisted of women participants, we cannot be sure that our results can generalise to men, which represents a limitation of our study. As women and men can

differ in conditioned threat acquisition,51 it could be possible that the modulation of Pavlovian aversive conditioning to goal-relevant vs. goal-irrelevant stimuli may have been affected

by sex differences in achievement motivation. However, women (_M_ _=_ 4.04, SD = 0.82) and men (_M_ = 4.32, SD = 0.75) participants in our sample did not statistically differ in achievement

motivation scores, as reflected by a Welch’s _t_-test for unequal sample sizes, _t_(18.79) = −1.16, _p_ = 0.262, _g_s = −0.332, 95% CI [−0.956, 0.250]. This result thereby provides no

evidence that sex differences in achievement motivation influenced our results. Another caveat relates to the fact that we did not consider the role of the hormonal cycle stage of our women

participants, which has been shown to affect skin conductance response, notably during extinction learning.51 Although we cannot exclude the possibility that this factor may have had an

effect on our results, we are not aware of any empirical evidence suggesting that the hormonal cycle stage specifically facilitates the acquisition of a conditioned response to certain

categories of stimuli, such as goal-relevant stimuli in the present case, relative to other stimulus categories, such as goal-irrelevant stimuli. In sum, our study suggests that stimuli

without any inherent biological evolutionary significance but temporarily associated with a higher goal-relevance can also induce facilitated Pavlovian aversive learning provided that

specific individual motivation dispositions are met concurrently, thus reflecting that the occurrence of a learning bias is crucially dependent on inter-individual differences in the

organism’s current concerns. In the present case, the learning bias towards goal-relevant stimuli in comparison with goal-irrelevant stimuli was expressed as a greater conditioned response

acquisition, and, importantly, as a facilitated conditioned response acquisition in participants scoring high on achievement motivation, whereas no effect on the persistence of the

conditioned response was observed. Although the impact of goal-relevance was modest and transient, these findings lean towards the view that Pavlovian aversive conditioning may be driven by

a general mechanism of relevance detection that is not necessarily selective for stimuli holding a pre-existing threat value.16 This mechanism yields flexibility in the way specific stimuli

encountered in the environment are eventually learned preferentially, depending primarily on the complex interplay between the stimulus at hand and the organism’s current concerns. Hence,

relevance detection provides a flexible theoretical framework that can not only incorporate the extant evidence on preferential Pavlovian aversive learning in the human conditioning

literature but also account for the large inter-individual differences typically observed in human emotional learning. In this perspective, the relevance detection approach holds promise for

contributing to an improved mechanistic understanding of emotional learning in humans. Ultimately, this alternative framework could also contribute to unravelling emotional learning

impairments preceding or following the onset and maintenance of specific affective disorders, such as anxiety disorders and phobias, thus hopefully aiding in developing and validating new

individualised and targeted interventions for these conditions. METHODS PARTICIPANTS Eighty-eight participants took part in the experiment, which was approved by the Faculty of Psychology

and Educational Sciences ethics committee at the University of Geneva. All ethical regulations were complied with. Sixteen participants were excluded from the analyses based on predetermined

criteria:9,15,16 seven because of technical problems, three for displaying virtually no SCR, and six for failing to acquire a conditioned response to at least one of the conditioned stimuli

predictive of the unconditioned stimulus. The final sample size consisted of 72 participants (59 women), aged between 18 and 70 years old (mean age = 22.67 ± 7.58 years). We established the

sample size prior to data collection by means of a power analysis conducted with G*Power 3 (ref. 52), which indicated that a total sample of 71 participants would be required to obtain a

power of 80% to detect a relatively small effect (_d_ = 0.3) as reported in a previous study.19 For counterbalancing purposes, we sought to recruit a sample of 72 participants that were

conditioned to at least one of the three stimulus categories, and stopped data collection when the required number of participants had been reached. STIMULI AND APPARATUS Six neutral complex

geometric figures commonly used in human conditioning paradigms31,53 served as cues in the spatial cueing task and subsequently as conditioned stimuli (CS) in the Pavlovian differential

aversive conditioning paradigm. The geometric figures were divided into three stimulus categories as a function of their goal-relevance and predictive power of target location in the spatial

cueing task: (a) the goal-relevant valid stimuli, which consistently predicted target location, (b) the goal-relevant invalid stimuli, which consistently predicted the opposite location

relative to the target, and (c) the goal-irrelevant stimuli, which were nonpredictive of target location by predicting target location and the opposite location with an equal probability

(50%). The goal-relevant valid and the goal-relevant invalid geometric figures allowed participants to anticipate target location, and were therefore relevant for the spatial cueing task

goals. By contrast, the goal-irrelevant geometric figures were uninformative about upcoming target location, thus being irrelevant for the spatial cueing task. We used two types of

goal-relevant stimuli in order to be able to dissociate a general effect of goal-relevance from a mere cue (in)validity effect. The attribution of the stimulus categories to the six

geometric figures were counterbalanced across participants. In the differential Pavlovian aversive conditioning procedure, one geometric figure from each of the three stimulus categories

served as a CS+, whereas the other one served as a CS−; this assignment being counterbalanced across participants. The unconditioned stimulus (US) was a mild electric stimulation (200-ms

duration, 50 pulses/s) delivered to the participants’ nondominant wrist through a Grass SD9 stimulator (Grass Medical Instruments, West Warwick, RI) charged by a stabilised current. The

conditioned response (CR) was assessed through SCR measured with two Ag-AgCl electrodes (6-mm contact diameter) filled with 0.5% NaCl electrolyte gel. The electrodes were attached to the

distal phalanges of the index and middle fingers of the participants’ nondominant hand. The SCR data was continuously recorded at 1000 Hz with a BIOPAC MP150 system (Santa Barbara, CA) and

analysed offline with AcqKnowledge software (Version 4.2; BIOPAC Systems Inc., Goleta, CA). PROCEDURE Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were informed about the general procedure

of the experiment and provided written informed consent. They next performed the spatial cueing task. Participants were then asked to rate the geometric figures on several dimensions (see

Supplementary Methods) before undertaking the differential Pavlovian aversive conditioning procedure. After the end of the conditioning procedure, they were again asked to provide subjective

ratings of the geometric figures (see Supplementary Methods). Finally, participants completed the Unified Motive Scales54 (UMS) to measure their achievement motivation. SPATIAL CUEING TASK

In this task31 (Fig. 1), each trial started with a fixation cross presented for a duration randomly varying between 250 and 750 ms. A cue was subsequently presented either on the left or the

right side of the fixation cross for 100 ms. The cues consisted of the six geometric figures, divided into the three stimulus categories (i.e. two goal-relevant valid cues, two

goal-relevant invalid cues, and two goal-irrelevant cues). Following a brief interval after the cue was removed (blank screen; 16.7 ms), a target consisting of a black bar was presented

onscreen for 100 ms. Participants were requested to press as quickly and accurately as possible with the second digit of their dominant hand the “B” key when the target was displayed

horizontally and the “N” key when it was displayed vertically, and their reaction times and accuracy were measured. The target appeared either at the same location as the cue (valid trial)

or at the opposite location (invalid trial; Fig. 1). After participants’ response, each trial ended with an intertrial interval randomly varying between 700 and 1300 ms. Participants were

asked to look at the fixation cross during the entire task. Participants first undertook a training session of 24 trials. Each of the six cues was presented four times. The training session

was repeated until participants reached an accuracy of 75%, after which the experimental task started. It was composed of 144 trials, divided into 48 trials for each stimulus category, each

cue being presented 24 times. During both the training session and the experimental task, the valid and invalid trials were equally presented, and the left or right position of the cue and

the target, as well as the horizontal and vertical orientation of the target, were counterbalanced, and the order of the trials pseudorandomised. All responses that were incorrect (4.06% of

the trials), faster than 200 ms (0.09% of the trials), or more than three standard deviations from the participant’s mean (1.63% of the trials) were removed prior to analysis.31 DIFFERENTIAL

PAVLOVIAN AVERSIVE CONDITIONING Before conditioning, the electrodes for measuring SCR were placed on participants and a work-up procedure was conducted to individually set the electric

stimulation intensity (_M_ _=_ 33.73 V, SD = 9.48, range = 10–50 V) to a level reported as “uncomfortable, but not painful”. During the initial habituation phase, each of the six geometric

figures serving as CSs was presented twice without being reinforced. In the following acquisition phase, each CS was presented seven times. This phase always began with a CS+ trial. Five of

the seven presentations of each CS+ coterminated with an electric stimulation delivery, whereas the CSs- were never paired with the US. In the extinction phase, each CS was presented six

times and the US was no longer delivered. During all the conditioning phases, the CSs were presented for 6 s with a variable intertrial interval ranging from 12 to 15 s. The CSs’ order of

presentation was pseudorandomised into 12 different orders. UNIFIED MOTIVE SCALES (UMS) At the end of the experiment, participants filled out the UMS.54 This questionnaire offers an explicit

measure of individuals’ motives. It is composed of 54 items measured on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). These items assess various types of

motivation, including achievement motive, power motive, affiliation motive, intimacy motive, fear of losing control, fear of failure, fear of rejection, and fear of losing emotional

contact.54 Given our a priori hypotheses, we exclusively focused on the achievement motive subscale, which comprised 10 items (standardised Cronbach’s _α_ = 0.85). Each participant’s

responses to these items were averaged to compute their achievement motivation score (_M_ = 4.09, SD = 0.81, range = 2.0–5.5; see Supplementary Figure 2). RESPONSE DEFINITION SCR was scored

for each trial as the peak-to-peak amplitude difference in skin conductance of the largest response starting in the 0.5–4.5 s temporal window following CS onset. The minimal response

criterion was 0.02 µS. Responses below this criterion were scored as zero and remained in the analysis. Before analysis, the SCR data was low-pass filtered (Blackman −92 dB, 1 Hz). SCRs were

detected automatically with AcqKnowledge software and manually checked for artefacts and response (mis)detection. Trials containing artefacts influencing the coding of event-related SCRs

(<0.001%) were omitted from the analyses. The raw SCRs were square-root-transformed to normalise the distributions and scaled according to each participant’s mean square-root-transformed

unconditioned response (UR). The UR was scored as the peak-to-peak amplitude difference in skin conductance of the largest response starting in the 0.5–4.5 s temporal window after the US

delivery. The habituation means were composed of the first two presentations of each CS. To investigate the CR acquisition readiness, the acquisition means were split into an early (i.e. the

first three presentations of each CS subsequent to the first pairing between the CS+ from the stimulus category and the US) and a late (i.e. the following three presentations of each CS)

phase.15,16,38 Because the CSs+ became predictive of the US solely after their first association with the electric stimulation, the first acquisition trial for each CS was removed from the

analyses. The extinction means included the last six presentations of each CS. The conditioning data analyses were performed on the CR, which was computed as the SCR to the CS+ minus the SCR

to the CS− from the same stimulus category.9,15,16 STATISTICAL ANALYSES Statistical analyses were performed with R55 and the afex package.56 An alpha level of 0.05 was adopted for all the

analyses performed. When descriptive analyses revealed the presence of outliers (value smaller than the lower quartile minus three times the interquartile range, or value larger than the

upper quartile plus three times the interquartile range57), we conducted the analyses including and excluding the outliers, and report the outcome of both analyses when the outlier removal

altered statistical significance. Otherwise, we only report the results of the analyses including the outliers. We report _η_2p or Hedges’ _g_av and their 90 or 95% confidence interval,

respectively, as estimates of effect sizes. REPORTING SUMMARY Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. DATA

AVAILABILITY The datasets generated and analysed during the current study, as well as the materials used therein, are available in the Open Science Framework repository at

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EQA6S. CODE AVAILABILITY The code used for data analysis can be found in the Open Science Framework repository at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EQA6S.

REFERENCES * LeDoux, J. E. Emotion, memory and the brain. _Sci. Am._ 270, 50–57 (1994). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Pavlov, I. P. _Conditioned Reflexes_ (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford,

1927). * Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning: it’s not what you think it is. _Am. Psychol._ 43, 151–160 (1988). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Garcia, J. & Koelling, R. A. Relation

of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. _Psychon. Sci._ 4, 123–124 (1966). Article  Google Scholar  * Ho, Y. & Lipp, O. V. Faster acquisition of conditioned fear to fear-relevant

than to nonfear-relevant conditional stimuli. _Psychophysiology_ 51, 810–813 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Öhman, A., Eriksson, A. & Olofsson, C. One-trial learning and superior

resistance to extinction of autonomic responses conditioned to potentially phobic stimuli. _J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol._ 88, 619–627 (1975). Article  Google Scholar  * Öhman, A. &

Dimberg, U. Facial expressions as conditioned stimuli for electrodermal responses: a case of “preparedness”? _J. Pers. Soc. Psychol._ 36, 1251–1258 (1978). Article  Google Scholar  * Öhman,

A., Fredrikson, M., Hugdahl, K. & Rimmö, P.-A. The premise of equipotentiality in human classical conditioning: Conditioned electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli. _J.

Exp. Psychol. Gen._ 105, 313–337 (1976). Article  Google Scholar  * Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R. & Phelps, E. A. The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear.

_Science_ 309, 785–787 (2005). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Mallan, K. M., Lipp, O. V. & Cochrane, B. Slithering snakes, angry men and out-group members: What and whom are we evolved

to fear? _Cogn. Emot._ 27, 1168–1180 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Öhman, A. & Mineka, S. Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning.

_Psychol. Rev._ 108, 483–522 (2001). Article  Google Scholar  * Seligman, M. E. P. Phobias and preparedness. _Behav. Ther._ 2, 307–320 (1971). Article  Google Scholar  * Sander, D., Grafman,

J. & Zalla, T. The human amygdala: an evolved system for relevance detection. _Rev. Neurosci._ 14, 303–316 (2003). Article  Google Scholar  * Sander, D., Grandjean, D. & Scherer, K.

R. A systems approach to appraisal mechanisms in emotion. _Neural Netw._ 18, 317–352 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Stussi, Y., Brosch, T. & Sander, D. Learning to fear depends on

emotion and gaze interaction: the role of self-relevance in fear learning. _Biol. Psychol._ 109, 232–238 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Stussi, Y., Pourtois, G. & Sander, D. Enhanced

Pavlovian aversive conditioning to positive emotional stimuli. _J. Exp. Psychol. Gen._ 147, 905–923 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Frijda, N. H. _The Emotions_ (Cambridge Univ. Press,

London, 1986). * Pool, E., Brosch, T., Delplanque, S. & Sander, D. Attentional bias for positive emotional stimuli: a meta-analytic investigation. _Psychol. Bull._ 142, 79–106 (2016).

Article  Google Scholar  * Flykt, A., Esteves, F. & Öhman, A. Skin conductance responses to masked conditioned stimuli: phylogenetic/ontogenetic factors versus direction of threat?

_Biol. Psychol._ 74, 328–336 (2007). Article  Google Scholar  * Hugdahl, K. & Johnsen, B. H. Preparedness and electrodermal fear-conditioning: ontogenetic vs phylogenetic explanations.

_Behav. Res. Ther._ 27, 269–278 (1989). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Cook, E. W. III., Hodes, R. L. & Lang, P. J. Preparedness and phobia: effects of stimulus content on human

visceral conditioning. _J. Abnorm. Psychol._ 95, 195–207 (1986). Article  Google Scholar  * Hugdahl, K. & Kärker, A.-C. Biological vs experiential factors in phobic conditioning. _Behav.

Res. Ther._ 19, 109–115 (1981). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Cunningham, W. A. & Brosch, T. Motivational salience: amygdala tuning from traits, needs, values, and goals. _Curr. Dir.

Psychol. Sci._ 21, 54–59 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Lonsdorf, T. B. & Merz, C. J. More than just noise: Inter-individual differences in fear acquisition, extinction and return of

fear in humans—biological, experiential, temperamental factors, and methodological pitfalls. _Neurosci. Biobehav. R._ 80, 703–728 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Byrom, N. C. &

Murphy, R. A. Individual differences are more than a gene × environment interaction: The role of learning. _J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. L_ 44, 36–55 (2018). Google Scholar  * Gazendam, F. J. et

al. Personality predicts individual variation in fear learning: a multilevel growth modeling approach. _Clin. Psychol. Sci._ 3, 175–188 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Hartley, C. A.,

Fischl, B. & Phelps, E. A. Brain structure correlates of individual differences in the acquisition and inhibition of conditioned fear. _Cereb. Cortex_ 21, 1954–1962 (2011). Article 

Google Scholar  * Lonsdorf, T. B. et al. Genetic gating of human fear learning and extinction. _Psychol. Sci._ 20, 198–206 (2009). Article  Google Scholar  * Sjouwerman, R., Scharfenort, R.

& Lonsdorf, T. B. Individual differences in fear learning: specificity to trait-anxiety beyond other measures of negative affect, and mediation via amygdala activation. Preprint at

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/01/04/233528 (2018). * Zorawski, M., Cook, C. A., Kuhn, C. M. & LaBar, K. S. Sex, stress, and fear: individual differences in conditioned

learning. _Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci._ 5, 191–201 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * Pool, E., Brosch, T., Delplanque, S. & Sander, D. Where is the chocolate? Rapid spatial orienting

toward stimuli associated with primary rewards. _Cognition_ 130, 348–359 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Murray, H. A. _Explorations in Personality_ (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1938). *

Nicholls, J. G. Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. _Psychol. Rev._ 91, 328–346 (1984). Article  Google Scholar  * Smith, C.

A. & Pope, K. L. in _Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Emotion and Social Behavior_ Vol. 14 (ed. Clark, M. S.) (Sage, Newbury Park, 1992). * French, E. G. Some

characteristics of achievement motivation. _J. Exp. Psychol._ 50, 232–236 (1955). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * McKeachie, W. J. in _Nebraska Symposium on Motivation_ (ed. Jones, M. R.)

(Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1961). * Rescorla, R. A. _Pavlovian Second Order Conditioning: Studies in Associative Learning_ (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1980). * Lonsdorf, T. B. et al. Don’t

fear ‘fear conditioning’: methodological considerations for the design and analysis of studies on human fear acquisition, extinction, and return of fear. _Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev._ 77,

247–285 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Severo, M. C., Walentowska, W., Moors, A. & Pourtois, G. Goal impact influences the evaluative component of performance monitoring: evidence

from ERPs. _Biol. Psychol._ 129, 90–102 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Walentowska, W., Moors, A., Paul, K. & Pourtois, G. Goal relevance influences performance monitoring at the

level of the FRN and P3 components. _Psychophysiology_ 53, 1020–1033 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Walentowska, W., Paul, K., Severo, M. C., Moors, A. & Pourtois, G. Relevance and

uncertainty jointly influence reward anticipation at the level of the SPN ERP component. _Int. J. Psychophysiol._ 132, 287–297 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Klinger, E. Consequences of

commitment to and disengagement from incentives. _Psychol. Rev._ 82, 1–25 (1975). Article  Google Scholar  * Desimone, R. & Duncan, J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

_Annu. Rev. Neurosci._ 18, 193–222 (1995). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Vogt, J., De Houwer, J., Moors, A., Van Damme, S. & Crombez, G. The automatic orienting of attention to

goal-relevant stimuli. _Acta Psychol._ 134, 61–69 (2010). Article  Google Scholar  * Mackintosh, N. J. A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.

_Psychol. Rev._ 82, 276–298 (1975). Article  Google Scholar  * Talmi, D. et al. Emotional stimuli exert parallel effects on attention and memory. _Cogn. Emot._ 27, 530–538 (2013). Article 

Google Scholar  * Beesley, T., Nguyen, K. P., Pearson, D. & Le Pelley, M. E. Uncertainty and predictiveness determine attention to cues during human associative learning. _Q. J. Exp.

Psychol._ 68, 2175–2199 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Le Pelley, M. E., Mitchell, C. J., Beesley, T., George, D. N. & Willis, A. J. Attention and associative learning in humans: an

integrative review. _Psychol. Bull._ 142, 1111–1140 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Pearce, J. M. & Hall, G. A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of

conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. _Psychol. Rev._ 87, 532–552 (1980). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Esber, G. R. & Haselgrove, M. Reconciling the influence of

predictiveness and uncertainty on stimulus salience: A model of attention in associative learning. _P. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci._ 278, 2553–2561 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Milad, M. R.

et al. Fear conditioning and extinction: Influence of sex and menstrual cycle in healthy humans. _Behav. Neurosci._ 120, 1196–1203 (2006). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Faul, F.,

Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. _Behav. Res. Methods_ 39, 175–191

(2007). Article  Google Scholar  * Gottfried, J. A., O’Doherty, J. & Dolan, R. J. Encoding predictive reward value in human amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. _Science_ 301, 1104–1107

(2003). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Schönbrodt, F. D. & Gerstenberg, F. X. R. An IRT analysis of motive questionnaires: the Unified Motive Scales. _J. Res. Pers._ 46, 725–742 (2012).

* R Core Team. _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2018). https://www.R-project.org/. * Singmann, H., Bolker, B.,

Westfall, J. & Aust, F. _afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments_. R package version 0.20-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex (2018). * Tukey, J. W. _Exploratory Data Analysis_

(Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1977). Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Affective Sciences, financed by the

Swiss National Science Foundation (51NF40-104897), and hosted by the University of Geneva, and by a Doc.CH grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (P0GEP1_159057) to Y.S. We thank

Eva R. Pool and Tobias Brosch for their insightful advice and comments on this work. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Swiss Centre for Affective Sciences, Campus Biotech,

University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Yoann Stussi & David Sander * Laboratory for the study of Emotion Elicitation and Expression (E3Lab), Department of Psychology, University of

Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Yoann Stussi, Aude Ferrero & David Sander * Cognitive & Affective Psychophysiology Laboratory (CAP-lab), Department of Experimental Clinical & Health

Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Gilles Pourtois Authors * Yoann Stussi View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Aude Ferrero View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Gilles Pourtois View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * David

Sander View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Y.S., G.P., and D.S. conceived and designed the experiment. A.F. and Y.S. performed

the experiment and analysed the data. All authors contributed to writing the paper and approved the final version of the manuscript. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Yoann Stussi.

ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional

claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION LIFE SCI REPORTING SUMMARY RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is

licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give

appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in

this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative

Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a

copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Stussi, Y., Ferrero, A., Pourtois, G. _et al._

Achievement motivation modulates Pavlovian aversive conditioning to goal-relevant stimuli. _npj Sci. Learn._ 4, 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0043-3 Download citation *

Received: 26 September 2018 * Accepted: 11 March 2019 * Published: 24 April 2019 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0043-3 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with

will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt

content-sharing initiative