A comparison of the effects of vicariously instigated classical conditioning and direct classical conditioning procedures

Two groups of Ss received either two or 16 paired classical conditioning trials beyond the peak CR. A third group received the same stimuli as in the 16 postpeak condition but in an unpaired and random order. The stimuli in all three groups were delivered directly to S. Subsequently, all three groups, including a fourth which was not given any prior direct classical conditioning, were exposed to vicariously instigated classical conditioning. This consisted of havingS observe someone (model) employed byE who received the same CS as was delivered during direct conditioning. The CS was paired with the feigned arm movement of the model, simulating a reaction to shock. This vicarious classical conditioning procedure when compared to direct classical conditioning resulted in smaller GSR magnitudes for both the CRs and UCRs. Previous experience with direct classical conditioning seems to have had an attenuating effect on GSR magnitude during the vicarious situation. A postexperimental questionnaire tended to support the results, and the relationship between the present study and current classical conditioning theory is discussed.     

Born to fear: non-associative vs associative factors in the etiology of phobias

Poulton and Menzies (Behaviour Research & Therapy 40 (2001) 127-149) review two lines of evidence as supporting a non-associative pathway to the origins of "evolutionary relevant phobias". First, in retrospective studies of mode of onset some recall they have always had this fear. We review here solid evidence that retrospective recall is notoriously unreliable. Second, they note as many nonphobics recall relevant associative learning experiences as do phobics. We argue such studies are very inconclusive because they fail to consider many experiential and personality vulnerability (and invulnerability) factors that strongly impact the outcome of any putative learning experience. Their argument also does not explain the transition from developmental fears to phobias that is central to their thesis. Overall, we call for major methodological improvements in this area, in the context of theoretical developments pointing to interacting vulnerability and invulnerability factors.     

Further evidence against the classical conditioning model of McCollough effects

McCollough effects (MEs) have been portrayed by Murch (1976) as classically conditioned responses which result from the pairing of color (unconditioned stimulus) with line orientation (conditioned stimulus). In the present experiment, we sought evidence that ME characteristics resembled those of undisputed conditioned responses. According to Rescorla (1968) and others, conditioned responses may not develop if the unconditioned stimulus is presented in the absence as well as in the presence of the conditioned stimulus. However, in our experiment, MEs induced by inspection sequences containing presentations of color alone in addition to color/ contour pairs were not weaker than controls. This discrepancy challenges the applicability of the conditioning model to MEs.     

The relationship between motor and secretory behaviors in classical appetitive conditioning

Three hungry dogs received pairings of food with an accessible, illuminated panel. This resulted in the dogs’ approaching the lighted panel and salivating. Despite the similarity of these conditioning procedures to those used in a large body of research primarily with avians, however, the dogs did not physically contact the lighted stimulus panel. These results bear on several issues concerning the form and direction of classically conditioned behaviors.     

Differentiation between vicarious instigation and classical conditioning of electrodermal responses

In past research of vicarious conditioning when a conditioned stimulus (CS) was repeatedly presented both to a model and an observer, the observer's reaction to the CS may have been the result of a vicariously conditioned reaction to the CS, as well as a vicariously instigated reaction to the inferred emotional state of the model who anticipates the reception of a noxious stimulus when the CS is presented. In order to partial out these two reactions, the present experiment employed 32 subjects of both sexes who took part in a two-group study of differential, vicarious classical conditioning of skin conductance responses. In one of the group, the tones serving as CS+ and CS- and which preceded the aversive and non aversive events to the mode, were presented over earphones to both the confederate model and the observer subject. In the second group, only the subjects had earphones on and were led to believe that the model was not aware of the CS presentations. This eliminated the possibility of vicariously instigated reactions. Although the conditioning effects produced in the present study were somewhat weak, results clearly showed equal levels of vicarious instigation and conditioning in the two groups. These results indicate that the potential confounding of these two reactions studies has not significantly affected result or conclusions from previous studies.     

Partial reinforcement effects in classical aversive conditioning in rabbits and human beings.

The partial reinforcement extinction effect (the PREE) in classical aversive conditioning was investigated in 2 experiments. In the first, the nictitating membrane responses of 120 rabbits were conditioned at a 250-msec. interstimulus interval (ISI) under continuous reinforcement, partial reinforcement with the unconditioned stimulus (US) omitted (Group PO), or partial reinforcement with the US delayed to 1,500 msec. (Group PD). These 3 groups were factorially extinguished under US-Omitted, US-Unpaired, or US-Delayed extinction regimens. A significant PREE was obtained, but only for PO training and US-Omitted extinction. The second experiment, employing human subjects in a masked eye blink conditioning task, produced parallel results. A general discrimination view of the classical PREE seems applicable, but one in which neither cognitive factors nor intertrial conditioning of reinforcement aftereffects play a significant role.     

Stimulus and temporal cues in classical conditioning

In 2 experiments, separate groups of rats were given stimulus conditioning, temporal conditioning, untreated control and (in Experiment 2) learned irrelevance control procedures, followed by a compound with both stimulus and temporal cues. Stimulus conditioning consisted of a random 15-s duration conditioned stimulus (CS) followed by food; temporal conditioning consisted of food-food intervals of fixed 90 s (Experiment 1) or fixed 75 + random 15 s (Experiment 2). The stimulus group abruptly increased responding after CS onset, and the temporal group gradually increased responding over the food-food interval. When the food-food interval was fixed 90 s, the temporal cue exerted stronger control in the compound, whereas when the food-food interval was fixed 75 + random 15 s, the stimulus cue exerted stronger control. The strength of conditioning, temporal gradients of responding, and cue competition effects appear to reflect simultaneous timing of multiple intervals.     

Necessary and sufficient factors in classical conditioning

The issue of necessary and sufficient factors (pairing-contiguity vs. contingency-correlation) in classical (Pavlovian) excitatory conditioning is examined: first, in terms of definitional (logical) and manipulational requirements of “necessary” and “sufficient”; second, in terms of Boolean logic test models indicating experimental and control manipulations in tests of pairing and contingency as necessary and sufficient factors; and, third, by a selective review of reference experiments showing appropriate experimental and control manipulations of pairing and contingency indicated in the Boolean logic test models. Results of examination show pairing-contiguity as the sole necessary and sufficient factor for excitatory conditioning, while contingency-correlation is conceptualized as a modulating factor controlling minimal-maximal effects of pairingcontiguity. Reservations and diagnostic experiments are indicated to assess effects of uncontrolled conditioned stimulus—unconditioned stimulus \((\overline {CS} - US)\) probability characteristics (e.g., p (CS ∩ US)/p \((\overline {CS} \cap US)\) in truly random (TR) schedule manipulations). Similar analysis of conditioned inhibition reveals insufficient evidence to support a choice among current alternatives.     

Associative interference in Pavlovian conditioning: A function of similarity between the interfering and target associative structures

Three lever-press suppression studies were conducted with water-deprived rats to investigate the role of similarity in proactive interference within first-order Pavlovian conditioning. Experiments 1a and 1b assessed the influence of stimulus complexity in proactive interference. Both experiments found greater interference when the interfering cue and target cue were composed of the same number of elements. Experiment 2 assessed the influence of context similarity in proactive interference and demonstrated that stronger proactive interference occurred when the interfering cue and the target cue were trained in the same context. The results in conjunction with other reports indicate that various types of cue interaction (e.g., interference and competition) are influenced by similarity of the interacting training events.