Evaluative Conditioning in Humans: A Meta-Analysis

Autor/inn/en	Hofmann, Wilhelm; De Houwer, Jan; Perugini, Marco; Baeyens, Frank; Crombez, Geert
Titel	Evaluative Conditioning in Humans: A Meta-Analysis
Quelle	In: Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2010) 3, S.390-421 (32 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0033-2909
DOI	10.1037/a0018916
Schlagwörter	Stimuli; Conditioning; Effect Size; Meta Analysis; Cognitive Processes; Psychological Studies; Literature Reviews; Affective Behavior; Attitudes; Classification; Error Patterns; Bias; Sampling; College Students; Psychology; Age Differences; Verbal Communication; Auditory Stimuli; Visual Stimuli + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Anreizsystem; Meta-analysis; Metaanalyse; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Affective disturbance; Active behaviour; Affektive Störung; Attitude; Einstellung; Verhalten; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Fehlertyp; Collegestudent; Psychologie; Age; Difference; Age difference; Altersunterschied; Auditive Stimulation
Abstract	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 = 0.52, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.466-0.582. 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. (Contains 11 footnotes, 6 tables, and 3 figures.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10