Abstract
It is argued that the conventional A/(A+B) ratio is an inappropriate tool for both the description and analysis of conditioned suppression. Conditioned suppression is a procedure that generates two separate dependent variables that cannot be meaningfully collapsed into a single index. Using a relatively simple experiment, we demonstrate that the procedure typically (1) suppresses responding during the CS and (2) generates a U-shaped function in the recovery of baseline responding. These reliable shifts in baseline rate confound the interpretation of the suppression ratio. It is further argued that comparison between individuals or groups of cases using an analysis of variance performed on suppression ratios is inappropriate because of numerous violations of the assumptions of the test. We offer a number of alternative strategies for the description and analysis of conditioned suppression. These include the use of raw data analyzed with nonparametric tests or an analysis of covariance, a procedure that accommodates the need for ipsative measurement without producing the flaws inherent in ANOVAs performed on suppression ratios.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
Fowler, H. Personal communication, November 1981.
Ayers, J. J. B. Personal communication, November 1981.
References
Annau, Z., &Kamin, L. The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961,54, 428–432.
Ayres, J. J. B., Berger-Gross, P., Kohler, E. A., Mahoney, W. J., &Stone, S. Some orderly nonmonotonicities in the trial-by-trial acquisition of conditioned suppression.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 174–180.
Baker, A. G., &Mackintosh, N. J. Pre-exposure to the CS alone, US alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance?Learning and Motivation, 1979,10, 278–294.
Baker, A. G., &Mercier, P. Manipulation of the apparatus and response context may reduce the US pre-exposure interference effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1982,34, 221–234.
Baker, A. G., Mercier, P., Gabel, J., &Baker, P. A. Contextual conditioning and the US pre-exposure effect in conditioned fear.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1981,7, 109–128.
Blackman, D. Conditioned suppression and the effects of classical conditioning on operant behavior. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.)Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Cattell, R. B. Psychological measurement: Ipsative, normative and interactive.Psychological Review, 1944,51, 292–303.
Davis, H. Conditioned suppression: A survey of the literature.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1968,2(Whole No. 30), 283–291.
Davis, H. On the importance of operant baselines in studies of operant-Pavlovian interactions. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.),Quantification of steady-state operant behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1981.
Davis, H., &Hurwitz, H. M. B. Operant-Pavlovian interactions. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.
Davis, H., &Levine, S. Predictability, control and the pituitaryadrenal response in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1982,96, 393–404.
Davis, H., &McIntire, R. Conditioned suppression under positive, negative, and no contingency between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969,12, 633–640.
Davis, H., Memmott, J., &Hurwitz, H. M. B. Autocon-tingencies: A model for subtle behavioral control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975,104, 169–188.
Davis, H., Memmott, J., &Hurwitz, H. M. B. Effects of signals preceding and following shock on baseline responding during a conditioned suppression procedure.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1976,25, 263–277.
Davis, H., &Shattuck, D. Transfer of conditioned suppression and conditioned acceleration from instrumental to consumatory baselines.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1980,8, 253–257.
Davis, H., Shattuck, D., &Wright, J. Autocontingencies: Factors underlying control of operant baselines by compound tone/shock/no-shock contingencies.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1981,9, 322–331.
Davis, H., &Wright, J. A note on procedural variability in studies of conditioned suppression.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1979,14, 149–150.
Dickinson, A., Colwill, R. M., &Pearce, J. M. Post-trial stimulation and the acquisition of conditioned suppression in the rat.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1980,32, 149–158.
Dickinson, A., Hall, G., &Mackintosh, N. J. Surprise and attenuation of blocking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 313–322.
Estes, W. K., &Skinner, B. F. Some quantitive properties of anxiety.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1941,29, 390–400.
Hammond, L. J. Increased responding to CS− in differential CER.Psychonomic Science, 1966,5, 337–338.
Horn, J. L. Equations representing combinations of components in scoring psychological variables.Acta Psychologica, 1963,21, 184–217.
Huck, S. W. The analysis of covariance: Increased power through reduced variability.Journal of Experimental Education, 1972,41, 42–46.
Hurwitz, H. M. B., &Roberts, A. E. Aversively controlled behavior and the analysis of conditioned suppression. In H. Davis & H. M. B. Hurwitz (Eds.),Operant-Pavlovian interactions. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1977.
Imada, H., Yamazaki, A., &Morishita, M. The effect of signal intensity upon conditioned suppression: Effects upon responding during signal and intersignal intervals.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1981,9, 269–274.
Kamin, L. J., &Brimer, C. J. The effects of intensity of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli on a conditioned emotional response.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1963,17, 194–200.
Karpicke, J., Christoph, G., Peterson, G., &Hearst, E. Signal location and positive versus negative condition suppression in the rat.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavioral Processes, 1977,3, 105–118.
Locurto, C. M., Tierney, J., &Fitzgerald, S. Omission training and positive conditioned suppression in the rat.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1981,9, 261–268.
Lyon, D. O. Conditioned suppression: Operant variables and aversive control.Psychological Record, 1968,18, 317–338.
Mackintosh, N. J., Bygrave, D. J., &Picton, B. M. B. Locus of the effect of a surprising reinforcer in the attenuation of blocking.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1977,29, 327–336.
Millenson, J., &Dent, J. G. Habituation of a conditioned emotional response.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,23, 126–134.
Millenson, J., &DeVilliers, P. A. Motivational properties of conditioned suppression.Learning and Motivation, 1972,3, 125–137.
Randich, A., &LoLordo, V. M. Preconditioned exposure to the unconditioned stimulus affects the acquisition of a conditioned emotional response.Learning and Motivation, 1979,10, 245–277.
Randich, A., &Rescorla, R. A. The effects of separate presentations of the US on conditioned suppression.Animal Learning and Behavior, 1981,9, 56–64.
Rescorla, R. A. Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968,66, 1–5.
Sidman, M. Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
Skinner, B. F. The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938.
Skinner, B. F. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1953.
Wagner, A. R., Mazur, J. E., Donegan, N. H., &Pfantz, P. C. Evaluation of blocking and conditioned inhibition to a CS signaling a decrease in US intensity.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1980,6, 376–385.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Grant A7496 (Hurwitz) and A0673 (Davis) from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hurwitz, H.M.B., Davis, H. The description and analysis of conditioned suppression: A critique of the conventional suppression ratio. Animal Learning & Behavior 11, 383–390 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199791
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199791