Operant GSR conditioning with cool air reinforcement

Two groups of 20 Ss each were run individually in a soundproof chamber heated to 115 F and humidified to 100%. Ss in the experimental group received brief presentation of cool air contingent upon emitted GSRs during 20 min of acquisition. Control Ss were matched one at a time in operant rate and were yoked one at a time to receive the cool air on a response-independent schedule. Both groups increased significantly in rate of unelicited GSRs during acquisition, with the experimental Ss’ curve rising more rapidly and both groups attaining equivalent terminal levels. During extinction, the groups maintained high levels of responding and did not differ. Examination of basal skin conductance data ruled out an activation hypothesis. In the control Ss, terminal response frequency was significantly correlated with percentage of fortuitous response-contingent reinforcement. It was concluded that both groups were conditioned, with the controls receiving intermittent reinforcement sufficiently often to elevate their responding. The cool air was judged to be an effective reinforcer of unelicited GSRs, perhaps more effective than those used in previous studies.     

Effects of operant conditioning on the GSR

Each of nine Ss was run for 11 daily sessions. Except for the first (operant level) and last two (extinction) sessions, 500-ohm drops in skin resistance were followed by reinforcement (light). These reinforcement periods lasted 20 min and were preceded by 10-min control periods during which no reinforcement was administered. Although the results showed no evidence for operant conditioning of the GSR, they did indicate that increased emission of GSR's occurred during the reinforcement period. This effect was shown to hold for Ss with low operant levels of GSR's but not for Ss with high operant levels.     

The effect of UCS intensity in classical and avoidance GSR conditioning

This study compared GSR avoidance and yoked-control conditioning procedures. Classical conditioning at two UCS intensities was followed by extinction and, two months later, by an avoidance session. Matching of Ss was based on GSR responsiveness and classical conditioning in the first session. The strong UCS led to more rapid reduction in CR latency (due to an increase in number of Ss responding) in the first session, and there was a tendency for maximum CR magnitude to occur in fewer trials with the strong UCS. No UCS-intensity difference in level of responding to the CS or UCS was found in the first session. A greater amount of spontaneous recovery in the second session was found in the strong UCS group. The avoidance and yoked control groups did not differ in CR magnitudes, latencies, or frequencies, nor in UCR magnitudes in the second session. They did differ significantly in the rate of decline in intertriai responses, the decline being more rapid in the avoidance condition.     

Cognitive manipulation of GSR extinction: Analogues for conditioning therapies

Cognitive determinants of GSR activity during extinction trials were examined following conditioning. Conditioned GSRs extinguished rapidly when subjects were informed the UCS would not again be administered, compared to subjects not given this information. Of greater interest was the finding that (false) high feedback concerning subjects’ responsivity to the Cs+ during extinction served to maintain GSR activity at a higher level than subjects receiving (false) low feedback. The relationship was observed within both information conditions. Implications are drawn for both aversive conditioning therapy and systematic desensitization.