Evaluative Conditioning in Humans: A Meta-Analysis.
This article presents a meta-analysis of research on evaluative conditioning (EC), defined as a change in the liking of a stimulus (conditioned stimulus; CS) that results from pairing that stimulus with other positive or negative stimuli (unconditioned stimulus; US). Across a total of 214 studies in...
| Publicado en: | Psychological Bulletin Vol. 136; no. 3; pp. 390 - 422 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
American Psychological Association
May 2010
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=508160972&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 508160972 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00332909 PSB jtl: Psychological Bulletin issn: 00332909 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: May 2010 vid: 136 iid: 3 pid: 34 pub: American Psychological Association artinfo: ui: 508160972 10.1037/a0018916 ppf: 390 ppct: 32 formats: tig: atl: Evaluative Conditioning in Humans: A Meta-Analysis. aug: au: Hofmann, Wilhelm Houwer, Jan de Perugini, Marco Baeyens, Frank Crombez, Geert su: Stimulus & response (Biology) Emotional conditioning Physical training & conditioning Conditioned response sug: subj: Stimulus & response (Biology) Emotional conditioning Physical training & conditioning Conditioned response ab: This article presents a meta-analysis of research on evaluative conditioning (EC), defined as a change in the liking of a stimulus (conditioned stimulus; CS) that results from pairing that stimulus with other positive or negative stimuli (unconditioned stimulus; US). Across a total of 214 studies included in the main sample, the mean EC effect was d =.52, with a 95% confidence interval of.466–582. As estimated from a random-effects model, about 70% of the variance in effect sizes were attributable to true systematic variation rather than sampling error. Moderator analyses were conducted to partially explain this variation, both as a function of concrete aspects of the procedural implementation and as a function of the abstract aspects of the relation between CS and US. Among a range of other findings, EC effects were stronger for high than for low contingency awareness, for supraliminal than for subliminal US presentation, for postacquisition than for postextinction effects, and for self-report than for implicit measures. These findings are discussed with regard to the procedural boundary conditions of EC and theoretical accounts about the mental processes underlying EC. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|