The law of effect and CR contingent modification of the UCS

A persistent theoretical contention in the American conditioning literature is that Conditional Reflexes (CR) are reinforced through some hidden Thorndikian law of effect. In its most general form, law of effect theories hold that Conditional Reflex-Unconditional Stimulus (UCS) overlap modifies the sensory consequences of the UCS to provide the source of differential reinforcement of CRs. However, consideration of the historical development of law of effect theories reveals they have lacked testability due to the fact that the sources of reinforcement have been alleged to beintrinsically related to the occurrence and topography of CRs. Such a postulated intrinsic relationship has made it difficult to experimentally manipulate the amount of CR-correlated reinforcement, since the source of reinforcement is presumed to be under The Subject’s (S’s) control. Some experiments will be reported in which the relation between CRs and properties of the UCS are madeextrinsic and, accordingly, permit an experimental assessment of law of effect formulations.     

The influence of context and UCS intensity on the UCS preexposure effect in a flavor aversion paradigm

Three studies were conducted to evaluate the influence of environmental context and UCS preexposure intensity on the acquisition of a flavor aversion. In the first study, rats were exposed to two UCS-alone presentations at one of three dose levels of LiCl. The rats were given the two UCS preexposures in one of two contexts (familiar or novel). Following the UCS-alone treatment, all of the subjects received two pairings of sucrose and LiCl (1.25 meq) in the familiar context. Animals receiving UCS preexposures in the same context as used during conditioning consumed significantly more sucrose than did saline control animals. In contrast, the influence of prior UCS preexposure was not evident when UCS preexposure was experienced in a context different from that experienced during conditioning. In Experiment 2, all animal received UCS preexposure and conditioning in the novel room. Animals received either two or four preexposures at 0, 1.25, or 3.75 meq dose of LiCl. Two UCS preexposures at 3.75 meq dose produced a stronger UCS preexposure effect than did the 1.25 meq dose. Animals in Experiment 3 received two exposures to either 0-, 1.25-, or 3.75-meq LiCl in one of two contexts, followed by conditioning with the 1.25-meq LiCl dose in the same context as preexposure. Greater UCS interference occurred in animals preexposed to LiCl in the novel rather than familiar environment, with no specific dose effects in either context. These observations are discussed in terms of context blocking and generalization decrement models of the UCS preexposure effect.     

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.     

Effects of UCS intensity and postpeak acquisition trials on classical conditioning of the SCR

The present study examined the effects of UCS intensity and number of postpeak acquisition trials on classical conditioning and extinction of the SCR. A 2 × 3 design was employed in which subjects received either a 1, 2, or 4 mA shock UCS and either two or 16 acquisition trials beyond the peak CR. While conditioning was demonstrated during acquisition, there was no relationship between strength of conditioning and intensity of UCS. The phenomenon of stronger resistance to extinction following fewer acquisition trials (e.g., two past the peak CR) than with many (e.g., 16 past the peak CR) was demonstrated only for the groups that were conditioned with the 4 mA UCS. Resistance to extinction varied positively with UCS intensity, but only for the subjects who received two postpeak acquisition trials. Sixteen trials beyond the peak CR resulted in the UCS intensity having little or no effect on resistance to extinction.     

The influence of psychoticism and extraversion on classical eyelid conditioning using a paraorbital shock UCS

An experiment is described in which the effects of Psychoticism and Extraversion on classical eyelid conditioning were examined using a balanced design involving two levels of paraorbital shock intensity and two levels of response threshold. Questionnaire measures of Anxiety and Impulsivity were also analysed together with subjective ratings of the UCS. Results were broadly consistent with Eysenck's personality theory in that subjects scoring high on Psychoticism demonstrated lower levels of conditioning.     

Classical conditioning in the leechMacrobdella Ditetra as a function of CS and UCS intensity

Classical conditioning in the leech was obtained using two levels of shock as the UCS, two levels of light as the CS; for each condition there was a CS-UCS paired and unpaired group. Analysis showed significant effects of pairing and a UCS intensity by trials interaction during acquisition. Spontaneous recovery was evident during the second day of extinction.     

Interaction of fear effects with habit strength

Four groups of rats received 0, 3, 6 or 9 days of overtraining after having reached stable performance on a continuous reinforcement bar pressing schedule. Half the subjects in each group had previously been designated emotionally reactive or non-reactive in terms of defecation rates in an open-field test. Following training, there were four test days in which bar pressing in each group was examined in the presence or absence of white noise. The major findings were that, in both the reactive and non-reactive groups, white noise produced a fear reaction which significantly depressed bar pressing at low levels of habit strength while having an energizing effect at higher levels. The results were interpreted as supporting Bardach's (1960) hypothesis that anxiety introduced early in practice is more disruptive than when introduced late in practice.