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

Field, Andy P and Davey, Graham C L (1998) Evaluative Conditioning: Arti-fact or -fiction?—A Reply to Baeyens, De Houwer, Vansteenwegen, and Eelen (1998). Learning and Motivation, 29 (4). pp. 475-491. ISSN 0023-9690

[img]
Preview
PDF
Download (95kB) | Preview

Abstract

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.

Item Type: Article
Schools and Departments: School of Psychology > Psychology
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Andy Field
Date Deposited: 29 Jan 2007
Last Modified: 09 Mar 2017 06:27
URI: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/707

View download statistics for this item

📧 Request an update