In previous studies, we found that bodily symptoms can be learned in a differential conditioning paradigm, using odors as conditioned stimuli and CO2-enriched air as unconditioned stimulus . However, this only occurred when the odor CS had a negative valence , and tended to be more pronounced in persons scoring high for Negative Affectivity . This paper considers the necessity and/or sufficiency of awareness of the CS–US contingency in three studies using this paradigm. The relation between contingency awareness and the (...) selective conditioning effect, and between contingency awareness and NA was also considered. Both self reported symptoms and respiratory physiology served as dependent variables. A learning effect on symptoms was found only for participants aware of the CS–US contingency, but not all participants reporting contingency awareness showed a learning effect. No conditioning effects appeared on the physiological measures. Also contingency awareness did not account for the selective conditioning effect, and did not interact with NA. Overall, the necessity but insufficiency hypotheses can only be withhold for group data and not for individual data. (shrink)

Several forms of dietary learning have been identified in humans. These include flavor–flavor learning, flavor–postingestive learning , and learned satiety. Generally, learning is thought to occur in the absence of contingency or demand awareness. However, a review of the literature suggests that this conclusion may be premature because measures of awareness lack the rigor that is found in studies of other kinds of human learning. If associations do configure outside awareness then this should be regarded as a rare instance of (...) automatic learning. Conversely, if awareness is important, then successful learning may be governed by an individual’s beliefs and predilection to attend to stimulus relationships. For researchers of dietary learning this could be critical because it might explain why learning paradigms have a reputation for being unreliable. Since most food preferences are learned, asking questions about awareness can also tell us something fundamental about everyday dietary control. (shrink)

Fulcher and Hammerl's (2001) important exploration of the role of contingency awareness in evaluative conditioning (EC) raises a lot of issues for discussion: (1) what boundaries, if any, exist between EC and affective learning paradigms?; (2) if EC does occur without awareness does this mean it is nonpropositional learning?; (3) is EC driven by stimulus-response (S-R), rather than stimulus-stimulus (S-S), associations and if so should it then surprise us that contingency awareness is not important?; and (4) if S-R associations are (...) at the heart of EC, should we automatically assume EC is part of a different learning mechanism to autonomic Pavlovian conditioning (Field, 2000a, 2000b)? This article, after a critical review of Fulcher and Hammerl's work, discusses these issues with reference to what can be realistically inferred about the mechanisms underlying EC. (shrink)

Recent studies have shown that the basic evaluative conditioning (EC) effect (originally neutral stimuli acquiring an affective value congruent with the valence of the affective stimulus they were paired with) seems to be limited to participants who are unaware of the stimulus pairings. If participants are aware of the pairings, reactance effects occur (i.e., changes in the opposite direction of the valence of the affective stimulus). To examine whether these reactance effects are due to processes of conscious countercontrol or whether (...) the ratings reflect intrinsic feelings towards the stimuli, a new procedure was developed that included a bogus‐pipeline condition. In this procedure, which was adapted from attitude research, participants were connected to bogus lie detector equipment leading them to believe that their “true” affective‐evaluative responses were being observed. In Experiment 1, reactance effects occurred also in this procedure, suggesting that the effect is spontaneous and not due to processes of conscious countercontrol. In Experiment 2, these effects were replicated using a between‐subjects design in addition to the standard within‐subjects control condition. (shrink)