De Houwer Jan
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Behav Res Ther. 2020 Apr;127:103558. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103558. Epub 2020 Jan 20.
For almost a century now, conditioning research has provided important insights in the etiology and treatment of anxiety disorders. Nevertheless, doubts were raised about whether anxiety disorders are related to conditioning. In this paper, I focus on distinguishing different claims about the relation between anxiety disorders and conditioning as well as ways of evaluating the merits of these claims. More specifically, a distinction is made between the claim that anxiety disorders are conditioning effects and the claim that anxiety disorders are due to a specific type of conditioning mechanism (i.e., the formation and activation of S-R associations, S-S associations, or propositions). Based on a brief review of the literature, I clarify which pieces of evidence are relevant for which claims and illustrate that different claims are differentially supported by the available evidence. Finally, I discuss two strategic reasons for conceptualizing anxiety disorders as conditioning effects rather than as effects of a particular conditioning mechanism.
近一个世纪以来,条件作用研究为焦虑症的病因和治疗提供了重要见解。然而,人们对焦虑症是否与条件作用有关提出了质疑。在本文中,我着重区分关于焦虑症与条件作用之间关系的不同主张,以及评估这些主张价值的方法。更具体地说,区分了焦虑症是条件作用效应这一主张,以及焦虑症是由于特定类型的条件作用机制(即S-R联结、S-S联结或命题的形成与激活)这一主张。基于对文献的简要回顾,我阐明了哪些证据与哪些主张相关,并表明现有证据对不同主张的支持程度不同。最后,我讨论了将焦虑症概念化为条件作用效应而非特定条件作用机制效应的两个策略性原因。