Abstract
Furedy, Poulos, and Schiffman (1975) have made a conclusion in direct contradiction to available data in skin conductance conditioning which show clearly that a stimulus designated to be random was, in fact, random with respect to an unconditioned stimulus. It was also pointed out that the overlap criterion does illustrate the weakness of the Toronto studies; that the random stimulus in the Prokasy, Williams, Kumpfer, and Lee (1973) paper was not excitatory; and that controlled studies for at least a decade have shown the first-interval response to be associative.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Dengerink, J. A., & Taylor, S. P. Multiple responses with differential properties in delayed galvanic skin response conditioning: A review. Psychophysiology, 1971, 8, 348–360.
Furedy, J. J., Poulos, C. X., & Schiffman, K. Logical problems with Prokasy’s assessment of contingency relations in classical skin conductance conditioning. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1975b, 7, 521–523.
Furedy, J. J., Poulos, C. X., & Schiffman, K. Contingency theory and classical autonomic excitatory and inhibitory conditioning: Some problems of assessment and interpretation. Psychophysiology, 1975b, 12, 98–105.
Prokasy, W. F. Random control procedures in classical skin conductance conditioning. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1975, 7, 516–520.
Prokasy, W. F., & Kumpfer, K. L. Classical conditioning. In W. F. Prokasy and D. C. Raskin (Eds.),Electrodermal activity in psychological research. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Prokasy, W. F., Williams, W. C., Kumpfer, K. L., Lee, W. Y., & Jensen, W. R. Differential SCR conditioning with two control baselines: Random signal and signal absent. Psychophysiology, 1973, 10, 145–153.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by NIMH Grant MH-15353.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prokasy, W.F. Random controls: A rejoinder. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation 7, 524–525 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201623
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201623