The functional‐cognitive framework for psychological research: Controversies and resolutions

The scientific goals, values and assumptions of functional and cognitive researchers have propelled them down two very different scientific pathways. Many have, and continue to argue, that these differences undermine any potential communication and collaboration between the two traditions. We explore a different view on this debate. Specifically, we focus on the Functional‐Cognitive (FC) framework, and in particular, the idea that cognitive and functional researchers can and should interact to the benefit of both. Our article begins with a short introduction to the FC framework. We sweep aside misconceptions about the framework, present the original version as it was outlined by De Houwer (2011) and then offer our most recent thoughts on how it should be implemented. Thereafter, we reflect on its strengths and weaknesses, clarify the functional (effect‐centric vs. analytic‐abstractive) level and consider its many implications for cognitive research and theorising. In the final section, we briefly review the articles contained in this Special Issue. These contributions provide clear examples of the conceptual, empirical and methodological developments that can emerge when cognitive, clinical, personality and neuroscientists fully engage with the functional‐cognitive perspective.     

Activation of latent self-schemas as a cognitive vulnerability factor for depression: The potential role of implicit self-esteem

To date, only two studies have investigated implicit self-esteem in depressed individuals. Surprisingly, both studies found evidence not in line with the cognitive theory of depression. We wanted to test whether these findings are replicable by investigating implicit self-esteem using the Implicit Association Test in currently depressed (CD), never depressed controls (ND), and formerly depressed individuals (FD). The latter two groups were tested before and after a negative mood induction. The results are in line with the previous two studies suggesting no difference in implicit self-esteem between CD patients and ND controls. Moreover, before mood induction, FD individuals evidenced a higher implicit self-esteem as compared to the two other groups. Compared to ND participants, FD individuals showed a significant drop in implicit self-esteem after the negative mood induction procedure, but this was due to the higher implicit self-esteem of FD before the mood induction. These results are discussed in the light of new perspectives on implicit self-esteem and depression.     

Higher-order retrospective revaluation in human causal learning

Previous studies demonstrated that participants will retrospectively adjust their ratings about the relation between a target cue and an outcome on the basis of information about the causal status of a competing cue that was previously paired with the target cue. We demonstrate that such retrospective revaluation effects occur not only for target cues with which the competing cue was associated directly, but also for target cues that were associated indirectly with the competing cue. These second-order and third-order retrospective revaluation effects are compatible with certain implementations of the probabilistic contrast model and with a modified, extended comparator model, but cannot be explained on the basis of a revised Rescorla-Wagner model or a revised SOP model.     

Evaluative conditioning can be modulated by memory of the CS–US pairings at the time of testing

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is the valence change of a (typically neutral) stimulus (CS) that is due to the previous pairing with another (typically valent) stimulus (US). It has been repeatedly shown that EC effects are stronger or existent only if participants know which US was paired with which CS. Knowledge of the CS–US pairings is usually measured temporally close to both the conditioning phase and the CS valence measurement phase. Hence, the relation between EC and knowledge about the pairings could indicate either that participants need to become aware of the pairings at some point or that they need to remember them during the CS valence test. We isolated the impact of memory during the CS valence test in a study that encompassed two sessions. During the first session, participants were presented with CS–US pairings. The valence of the CSs was measured in a second session several days later using both a rating scale and an affective priming procedure. Memory for the pairings was measured both during the first and the second session. Using item-based multilevel analysis, we found that EC in the second session was related to memory for the pairings during the second session, but not to the memory for the pairings measured immediately after the learning phase. For the pairs that were remembered during the first session, but not during the second session, no EC effect was found. These results suggest that memory for CS–US pairings during valence measurement can be relevant for EC effects to occur.     

Evaluative conditioning: Recent developments and future directions

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is generally considered to be one of the routes via which likes and dislikes are acquired. We identify recent trends in EC research and speculate about the topics that will dominate future research on EC. Many of the recent developments in EC research were shaped by functional definitions of EC that refer only to environmental conditions, but not to mental processes and representations. These functional definitions stimulated the development of and debates between theories about the mental processes that mediate EC. These trends, as well as greater methodological and conceptual sophistication, inspired meta-conditional studies that aim at determining the conditions under which EC is characterized by certain properties. The question of whether EC depends on contingency awareness remains a central topic, albeit with a stronger link to theorizing about underlying mental processes. Other automaticity features have gained enhanced interest, as can for example be seen in research investigating whether EC is goal-independent and whether EC is resource-independent. We argue that future research would benefit from a sharper distinction between processes that operate during acquisition (i.e., when CS–US pairs are presented) and processes that operate during measurement (i.e., when the effects of CS–US pairings are assessed). We conclude with a short summary of all articles in this Special Issue, relating them to the identified trends in EC research.     

Evaluative conditioning without directly experienced pairings of the conditioned and the unconditioned stimuli

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is the valence change of a stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) that is due to the previous pairing with another stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, US). We investigated whether EC can occur also when the CS-US pairings are not experienced directly by the participant but are implied by other events that the participant encounters. In two experiments, positive USs were presented in some trials and negative USs in other trials. Afterwards, participants were given information from which it was possible to conclude that CSs were covertly present during these trials. Finally, the valence of these CSs was registered using both implicit (Implicit Association Test, affective priming) and explicit measures (valence ratings). In line with the assumption that EC effects can be based on CS-US pairings that are not directly experienced, the valence of the CSs changed in the direction of the US with which they were covertly paired. This effect was observed both on explicit and on implicit measures. We argue that several aspects of our results are in line with propositional models of EC and fit less well with association formation models.     

Outcome and cue properties modulate blocking

Participants saw a series of situations in which a cue (a light appearing at a certain position) could be followed by an outcome (a drawing of a tank that exploded) and were afterwards asked to rate the likelihood of the outcome in the presence of the cue. In Experiments 1 and 2, the compound cues AT and KL were always followed by the outcome (AT+, KL+). During an elemental phase that either preceded or followed the compound phase, Cue A was also paired with the outcome (A+). Cue T elicited a lower rating than Cues K and L when cues were described as being weapons but not when the cues were said to be indicators. The magnitude of this blocking effect was also influenced by whether the outcome occurred to a maximal or submaximal extent. Experiment 3 replicated the effect of cue instructions on blocking (A+, AT+) but showed that cue instructions had no impact on reduced overshadowing (B-, BT+). The results shed new light on previous findings and support probabilistic contrast models of human contingency judgements.