Evaluative conditioning: Arti-fact or -fiction? A reply to Baeyens, de Houwer, Vansteenwegen, and Eelen (1998)

Baeyens et al. (1998) claim that Field and Davey's (1997) controversial stu dy of conceptual conditioning offers little threat to current conceptions o f evaluative conditioning. This article addresses some of the questions pos ed by Baeyens et 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. Specificall y, we begin by reviewing the status of studies that have used a procedure d ifferent from the Type-X procedure. It is then argued that, although the Ty pe-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 e valuative conditioning (EC) is functionally distinct from autonomic conditi oning. We then review the evidence from non-Type-X procedures that FC is a distinct form of learning. Finally, an attempt is made to explain why betwe en-subject controls should be used as a matter of course in this field of r esearch. (C) 1998 Academic Press.