De Houwer, J. (2020). Revisiting classical conditioning as a model for anxiety disorders: A
conceptual analysis and brief review. Behavior Research and Therapy, 127, 103558-
103558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103558
De Houwer's article focuses on numerous statements about the relationship between
anxiety disorders and conditioning, as well as methods for evaluating the merits of these claims.
More specifically, a contrast is established between the idea that anxiety disorders are
conditioning mechanisms and the view that anxiety disorders are not. De Houwer thinks that any
discussion of the relationship between classical conditioning and anxiety disorders must begin
with a definition of the words "classical conditioning" and "anxiety disorders." He quickly
summarizes the available data for the many claims about the function of conditioning in anxiety
disorders. He examines research pertinent to determining if anxiety disorders have conditioning
effects. He examines evidence that supports the concept that anxiety disorders are caused by
unique conditioning mechanisms (De Houwer, 2020).
De Houwer emphasizes that his literature study is neither intended to be exhaustive, nor
is it intended to be final. He does, however, emphasize an essential reason for separating
between distinct assertions concerning the relationship between conditioning and anxiety
disorders: evidence against one claim should not be construed as evidence against another claim
or against the conditioning method in general. Since the second half of the previous century,
conditioning research has been the primary source of inspiration for hypotheses regarding the
genesis and treatment of anxiety disorders. However, the influence of conditioning studies on
clinical psychology has declined since the 1980s. This drop can be traced in part to several
significant articles that called into doubt the relevance of conditioning research for anxiety
disorders (De Houwer, 2020).
Because it illustrates the distinction between anxiety illnesses and conditioning, this
article would be a wonderful source reference for a summative final research paper. The author
concentrated on the difference between the arguments that anxiety disorders are conditioning
mechanisms. He also evaluated the evidence for the various theories concerning the role of
conditioning in anxiety and discussed information related to the hypothesis that anxiety
conditioning affects. Although De Houwer stated that his evaluation of the literature is not
meant to be exhaustive or conclusive, he did highlight crucial grounds for discriminating
between different assertions about the relationship between conditioning and anxiety disorders
(De Houwer, 2020).
Hughes, S., Mattavelli, S., Hussey, I., & De Houwer, J. (2020). The influence of extinction and
counterconditioning procedures on operant evaluative conditioning and intersecting
regularity effects. Royal Society open science, 7(10), 192085.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.192085
Exposing people to systematic patterns or regularities in the environment, such as the
repeated presentation of a single stimulus (simple exposure), two or more stimuli, or two
correlations between stimuli and behavior, is one of the most powerful means of influencing
what they like and dislike. Hughes discovered in 2016 that evaluations develop when
environmental regularities intersect with one another. The purpose of this study was to see if
assessments created through operant EC (evaluative conditioning) and intersecting regularities
might be damaged or altered through extinction or counterconditioning. Participants in seven
pre-registered trials initially went through a learning phase to build unique assessments, followed
by one of many types of extinction or counter conditioning techniques to erase them. The
findings show that evaluations were generally robust to extinction and counterconditioning.
Over the last century, social and cognitive psychology research has converged on a seemingly
basic but profound idea: what we like, and dislike is acutely sensitive to our interactions with the
world around us. We may rapidly and readily alter what individuals like and dislike by exposing
them to precise patterns of events in the environment. Hughes' current work in this study
represents the first time that these newly identified learning pathways have been explored in this
manner. He encourages others to continue investigating promising ways for changing what
individuals like and dislike (Hughes et al., 2020).
After reading this article, one might conclude that it could be useful information for a
summative final research paper. In the study of the regularity type that involves pairing stimuli,
advertisers frequently couple a neutral stimulus such as a perfume brand with a valanced
stimulus such as photographs of a renowned actress to alter assessments of the former in line
with the latter. Another pattern includes associating actions to stimuli: pushing alcohol away and
drawing soft drinks towards oneself effects evaluations of these stimuli as well as how much is
consumed as an approach/avoidance. These were all instances of evaluative learning; the type of
regularity that leads to changes in liking differed (Hughes et al., 2020).
Schlinger, H. D. (2021). The impact of B. F. skinner's science of operant learning on early
childhood research, theory, treatment, and care. Early Child Development and Care,
191(7-8), 1089-1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1855155
B. F. Skinner is widely regarded as the most eminent psychologist of the twentieth
century, and his discovery of operant learning (conditioning) has had tremendous impact on the
area of psychology as well as other disciplines such as education, neurology, and philosophy.
Skinner’s discovery and explication of operant learning has also had a profound impact on our
knowledge of behavioral changes in infancy and childhood, as well as on the treatment of
behavioral abnormalities in children. Skinner’s findings and innovations, as discussed in this
article, have not only contributed to a scientific understanding of typical child development, but
have also resulted in substantial breakthroughs in the teaching, treatment, and care of children.
Skinner might be considered an early childhood pioneer in this way. Skinner’s fundamental
discovery was that behavior may be conditioned and sustained using varied reinforcement
schedules (Schlinger, 2021).
The behavior of infants and young children has been shown to be sensitive to such
schedules. Skinner laid the experimental, theoretical, and practical foundation for generations of
researchers, theorists, and practitioners to extend operant research and theory into all areas of
early childhood research, theory, and application, thus making him a pioneer in those areas. The
cumulative effect of the research, and application of operant learning on early childhood
development has been nothing short of astonishing. Skinner’s discoveries have perhaps made
the most significant contribution to the understanding of early childhood development and the
education, treatment, and care of young children (Schlinger, 2021).
This article would undoubtedly be an excellent source for a summative final research
project. Schlinger did a fantastic job of documenting and researching Skinner's accomplishments
and findings on early childhood development and relating them to operant learning research,
theory, therapy, and care. The author of this article stated that Skinner studied nonhuman
animals to learn about humans, just as medical experts study nonhuman animals to learn about
human anatomy and physiology. Skinner was interested in human behavior from the outset of his
experimental investigations. Skinner was one of the few people in history, particularly in
psychology, who made contributions to basic science, theory, philosophy, and technology
(Schlinger, 2021).
Skora, L. I., Yeomans, M. R., Crombag, H. S., & Scott, R. B. (2021). Evidence that instrumental
conditioning requires conscious awareness in humans. Cognition, 208, 104546-104546.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104546
The underpinning of adaptive behavior is instrumental conditioning. Understanding
whether it is possible without awareness is therefore critical for theoretical and practical research
into the limits of unconscious processing. With recent research casting doubt on the feasibility of
more complex forms of unconscious learning, as well as methodological and statistical artifacts
that can contribute to incorrectly assuming absence of awareness, it is critical to rigorously
address the question of unconscious instrumental conditioning feasibility. The extent to which
learning can take place without conscious awareness has been extensively researched. One
example of a sophisticated learning process that has previously been proposed to proceed
without cue awareness is instrumental conditioning. This is the process by which agents learn
the relationships between stimuli in the environment and their outcomes, and then act on them
selectively. However, new data suggests that more complex forms of learning, such as
instrumental conditioning, contingency learning, and fear conditioning, may not be as
unconscious as previously thought (Skora, et al.,2021).
Previous research on unconscious learning indicates that simple forms of associative
learning, such as classical conditioning, emotional, visuospatial, or multimodal learning, can
occur without conscious knowledge of the stimuli. Learning is often measured by the presence
or absence of a conditioned response or by reaction times. As a result, because instrumental
conditioning is a more sophisticated process, the extent to which complex kinds of learning, such
as instrumental conditioning, are achievable without conscious awareness remains an open
subject (Skora et al., 2021).
After review of this article, it can be effectively used for a summative research paper with
the information provided. However, the question of whether instrumental conditioning is
possible without conscious awareness is still an unresolved question. Both Pessiglione and
Mastropasque concluded in 2008 and 2015 that evidence for unconscious instrumental activity is
critical and one of the oldest kinds of adaptive behavior, both phylogenetically and
ontogenetically. As such, the extent to which it can or cannot proceed unconsciously is regarded
as a significant subject to be resolved. Still, considering all the information, research, and
evidence contained in this article it can provide at least a starting point to answer this question
(Skora et al., 2021).
Zhang, L., Lu, X., Bi, Y., & Hu, L. (2019). Pavlov’s pain: The effect of classical conditioning on
pain perception and its clinical implications. Current Pain and Headache Reports, 23(3),
19-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-019-0766-0
Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience linked with real or potential
tissue injury, with biological tasks that include identifying potential dangers to bodily harm,
avoiding tissue damage, and promoting healing from actual body damage. These functions are
dependent on an individual's learning ability. For decades, it has been recognized that classical
conditioning affects pain perception. Classical conditioning affects both acute and chronic pain,
which continues long after tissue damage has been repaired. The specific relationship between
conditioning and pain, however, is unknown. Furthermore, the clinical ramifications of this
interaction are greatly underestimated. Classical conditioning, or Pavlovian conditioning, which
develops connections between two events in the broadest sense, has been linked to changes in
pain sensitivity.
Classical conditioning has far-reaching therapeutic implications in pain therapy because it
can influence pain perception by increasing pain sensitivity and contributing to the development
and maintenance of chronic pain. However, there are two key unresolved difficulties that will
require further examination. One issue is that the intricate link between classical conditioning
and explicit anticipation is a major impediment to understanding the psychological
underpinnings of conditioned hyperalgesia and hypoalgesia. Much extant research combines
conditioning and verbal instruction to cause hyperalgesia or hypoalgesia. As a result, any success
or failure in creating conditioned hyperalgesia or hypoalgesia may be attributed to one or both
factors. Some intriguing ways for disentangling classical conditioning from explicit expectation
have been developed, however many of them are unsatisfactory solutions (Zhange et al., 2019).
After reading this article, it would be a suitable source of reference for a summative final
research paper based on the information it supplied. The material about pain and its therapy was
really intriguing. The article also gave a thorough examination of the classical conditioning
features of acute and chronic pain, as well as an in-depth discussion of the prospects for using
conditioning in pain management. Classical conditioning has been shown to dramatically
influence pain sensation and shape pain's role in human health. The article provided systematic
knowledge of conditioning's function in pain, which advances our understanding of the nature of
pain, aids in the relief of patients' suffering, and so contributes to the promotion of human
flourishing (Zhange et al., 2019).
