Abstract
In a blocking procedure, conditioned stimulus (CS) A is paired with the unconditioned stimulus (US) in Phase 1, and a compound of CSs A and X is then paired with the US in Phase 2. The usual result of such a treatment is that X elicits less conditioned responding than if the A-US pairings of Phase 1 had not occurred. Obtaining blocking with human participants has proven difficult, especially if a behavioral task is used or if the control group experiences reinforcement of a CS different from the blocking CS in Phase 1. In the present series, in which human participants and a behavioral measure of learning were used, we provide evidence of blocking, using the above described control condition. Most important, we demonstrate that extinction of the blocking CS (A) following blocking treatment reverses the blocking deficit (i.e., increases responding to X). These results are at odds with traditional associative theories of learning, but they support current associative theories that predict that posttraining manipulations of the competing stimulus can result in a reversal of stimulus competition phenomena.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Annau, Z., &Kamin, L. J. (1961). The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,54, 428–432.
Arcediano, F. (1998).Recuperación de la respuesta a un estímulo bloqueado extinguiendo el estímulo bloqueador [Recovery of responding to a blocked stimulus following extinction of the blocking stimulus]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bilbao, Spain: Universidad de Deusto.
Arcediano, F., Matute, H., &Miller, R. R. (1997). Blocking of Pavlovian conditioning in humans.Learning & Motivation,28, 188–199.
Arcediano, F., Ortega, N., &Matute, H. (1996). A behavioural preparation for the study of human Pavlovian conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49B, 270–283.
Atkinson, R. C., &Estes, W. K. (1963). Stimulus sampling theory. In R. D. Luce, R. B. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121–268).New York: Wiley.
Baker, A. G. (1977). Conditioned inhibition arising from a between-sessions negative correlation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 144–155.
Blaisdell, A. P., Gunther, L. M., &Miller, R. R. (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the blocking CS.Animal Learning & Behavior,27, 63–76.
Bush, R. R., &Mosteller, F. (1951). A mathematical model for simple learning.Psychological Review,58, 313–323.
Chapman, G. B. (1991). Trial order affects cue interaction in contingency judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 837–854.
Chapman, G. B., &Robbins, S. J. (1990). Cue interaction in human contingency judgment.Memory & Cognition,18, 537–545.
Cole, R. P., Barnet, R. C., &Miller, R. R. (1995). Effect of relative stimulus validity: Learning or performance deficit?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,21, 293–303.
Davey, G. C. L., &Singh, J. (1988). The Kamin “blocking” effect and electrodermal conditioning in humans.Journal of Psychophysiology,2, 17–25.
Denniston, J. C., Miller, R. R., &Matute, H. (1996). Biological significance as a determinant of cue competition.Psychological Science,7, 325–331.
Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., &Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.),Handbook of contemporary learning (pp. 65–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dickinson, A., &Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49B, 60–80.
Droungas, A., &Lolordo, V. M. (1994). Evidence for simultaneous excitatory and inhibitory associations in the explicitly unpaired procedure.Learning & Motivation,25, 1–25.
Durlach, P. J. (1986). Explicitly unpaired procedure as a response elimination technique in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,12, 172–185.
Estes, W. K., &Skinner, B. F. (1941). Some quantitative properties of anxiety.Journal of Experimental Psychology,29, 390–400.
Gallistel, C. R., &Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning.Psychological Review,107, 289–344.
Hearst, E., &Franklin, S. R. (1977). Positive and negative relations between a signal and food: Approach-withdrawal behavior to the signal.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 37–52.
Kamin, L. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–31). Miami: University of Miami Press.
Kaplan, P. (1984). The importance of relative temporal parameters in trace autoshaping: From excitation to inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,10, 113–126.
Kaufman, M. A., &Bolles, R. C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 318–320.
Konorski, J. (1948).Conditioned reflexes and neuron organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larkin, M. J. W., Aitken, M. R. F., &Dickinson, A. (1998). Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,24, 1331–1352.
Lovibond, P. F., Siddle, D. A. T., &Bond, N. (1988). Insensitivity to stimulus validity in human Pavlovian conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40B, 377–410.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
Markman, A. B. (1989). LMS rules and the inverse base-rate effect: Comment on Gluck and Bower (1988).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 417–421.
Matzel, L. D., Gladstein, L., &Miller, R. R. (1988). Conditioned excitation and conditioned inhibition are not mutually exclusive.Learning & Motivation,19, 99–121.
Matzel, L. D., Schachtman, T. R., &Miller, R. R. (1985). Recovery of an overshadowed association achieved by extinction of the overshadowing stimulus.Learning & Motivation,16, 398–412.
Matzel, L. D., Shuster, K., &Miller, R. R. (1987). Covariation in conditioned response strength between stimuli trained in compound.Animal Learning & Behavior,15, 439–447.
Miller, R. R., &Matute, H. (1996). Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 370–386.
Miller, R. R., &Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Miller, R. R.,Schachtman, T. R., &Matzel, L. D. (1987). [Failure to attenuate blocking by posttraining extinction of a blocking stimulus]. Unpublished raw data.
Pavlov, I. (1927).Conditioned reflexes (G.V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model of stimulus generalization for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
Pellón, R., García, J. M., &Sánchez, P. (1995). Blocking and electrodermal conditioning in humans.Psicológica,16, 321–329.
Rescorla, R. A. (1971). Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement following prior inhibitory conditioning.Learning & Motivation,2, 113–123.
Rescorla, R. A., &LoLordo, V. M. (1965). Inhibition of avoidance behavior.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,59, 406–412.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37B, 1–21.
Suiter, R. D., &LoLordo, V. M. (1971). Blocking of inhibitory Pavlovian conditioning in the conditional emotional response procedure.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,76, 137–144.
Tassoni, C. J. (1995). The least mean squares network with information coding: A model of cue learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 193–204.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements.Learning & Motivation,25, 127–151.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., Haberlandt, K., &Price, T. (1968). Stimulus selection and a “modified continuity theory.”Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 171–180.
Wasserman, E. A., &Berglan, L. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgment: The role of within-compound associations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51B, 121–138.
Weisman, R. G., &Litner, J. S. (1969). The course of Pavlovian excitation and inhibition of fear in rats.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,69, 667–672.
Williams, D. A. (1986). On extinction of inhibition: Do explicitly unpaired conditioned inhibitors extinguish?American Journal of Psychology,99, 515–525.
Williams, D. A., Dyck, D. G., &Tait, R. W. (1986). Excitatory backward conditioning in conditioned punishment and conditioned suppression in rats.American Journal of Psychology,99, 367–384.
Williams, D. A., &Overmier, J. B. (1988). Some types of conditioned inhibitors carry collateral excitatory associations.Learning & Motivation,19, 345–368.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The experimental preparation and Experiments 1 and 2 were part of a dissertation submitted by F. A. to the University of Deusto in partial fulfillment of the doctoral degree. Support for this research was provided by Grants PI96/006 from Departamento de Educación, Universidades, e Investigación (Basque Government), and PB95-0440 from Dirección General de Enseñanza Superior (Spanish Ministry of Education) and by NIH Grant 33881. F. A. was supported by Fellowship BFI97.013 from Programa de Formación de Investigadores del Departamento de Educación, Universidades, e Investigación (Basque Government). We thank Mirko Gerolin, Jennifer Kelschenabch, Kerstin Kindling, Oscar Landeta, Nuria Ortega, Oskar Pineño, and Sonia Vegas for their assistance in data collection. We also thank Ralph R. Miller for enlightening discussions and for his encouragement and insightful comments on an early version of the manuscript. We are especially grateful to Ana Martínez-Pampliega for her help in recruiting participants. Finally, F. A. thanks his dissertation committee members, Imanol Amayra, Victoria Chamizo, Antonio Maldonado, Ana Martínez-Pampliega, and Ricardo Pellón, for their insights and advice relating to this project. F. A. and M. E. are now at the State University of New York at Binghamton.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arcediano, F., Escobar, M. & Matute, H. Reversal from blocking in humans as a result of posttraining extinction of the blocking stimulus. Animal Learning & Behavior 29, 354–366 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192901
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192901