University of Sussex
Browse
DOCUMENT
Evaluative_conditioning__Arte-fact_or_-fiction.pdf (92.99 kB)
DOCUMENT
Evaluative_conditioning__Arte-fact_or_-fiction.pdf (160.98 kB)
DOCUMENT
Evaluative_conditioning__Arte-fact_or_-fiction.pdf (288.66 kB)
1/0
3 files

Evaluative Conditioning: Arti-fact or -fiction?—A Reply to Baeyens, De Houwer, Vansteenwegen, and Eelen (1998)

journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-07, 13:39 authored by Andy FieldAndy Field, Graham C L Davey
Baeyens et al.(1998) claim that Field and Davey's (1997) controversial study of conceptual conditioning offers little threat to current conceptions of evaluative conditioning. This article addresses some of the questions posed by Baeyenset al.First, some criticisms of the conceptual conditioning study appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the procedure. Second, we address the issues surrounding the so-called Type-X procedure. Specifically, we begin by reviewing the status of studies that have used a procedure different from the Type-X procedure. It is then argued that, although the Type-X procedure has been used in only a portion of EC research, it has been used primarily in those studies whose outcome has been used to argue that evaluative conditioning (EC) is functionally distinct from autonomic conditioning. We then review the evidence from non-Type-X procedures that EC is a distinct form of learning. Finally, an attempt is made to explain why between-subject controls should be used as a matter of course in this field of research.

History

Publication status

  • Published

Journal

Learning and Motivation

ISSN

0023-9690

Publisher

Elsevier

Issue

4

Volume

29

Page range

475-491

Department affiliated with

  • Psychology Publications

Full text available

  • Yes

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date

2007-01-29

Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC