Abstract
Rats were subjected to the Kamin two-stage blocking procedure. First, a stimulus, A, was conditioned and then reinforced in compound with a target stimulus, B. During compound training, an attempt was made to alleviate blocking of conditioning to B by presenting a “surprise” stimulus for 5 sec following the reinforced AB compound. The surprise stimulus consisted of the continued presentation of the previously reinforced element, A. During A training, A had never extended beyond the moment of reinforcement; thus, its extension beyond reinforcement during AB training was hypothesized to be “surprising” and, therefore, expected to alleviate blocking. Blocking in this condition was, however, just as strong as in a standard blocking condition. The results do not favor a surprise interpretation of unblocking but do seem to be consistent with other theoretical views (e.g., Rescorla & Wagner, 1972).
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
Gaioni, S. J.Blocking and temporal predictability. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, 1975.
Bombace, J. C.CS pre-exposure retards conditioning to A but does not alleviate blocking to X. Manuscript in preparation, 1979.
References
Annau, Z., &Kamin, L. J. The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961,54, 428–432.
Barnes, G. W. Conditioned stimulus intensity and temporal factors in spaced-trial classical conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956,51, 192–198.
Burkhardt, P. E., &Ayres, J. J. B. CS and US duration effects in one-trial simultaneous fear conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1978,6, 225–230.
Cheatle, M. D., &Rudy, J. W. Analysis of second-order odor-aversion conditioning in neonatal rats: Implications for Kamin’s blocking effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1978,4, 237–249.
Dickinson, A., Hall, G., &Mackintosh, N. J. Surprise and the attenuation of blocking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 313–322.
Dickinson, A., &Mackintosh, N. J. Reinforcer specificity in the enhancement of conditioning by posttrial surprise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 162–177.
Donegan, N. H., Whitlow, J. W., Jr., &Wagner, A. R. Posttrial reinstatement of the CS in Pavlovian conditioning: Facilitation or impairment of acquisition as a function of individual differences in responsiveness to the CS.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1977,3, 357–376.
Gray, T., &Appignanesi, A. A. Compound conditioning: Elimination of the blocking effect.Learning and Motivation, 1973,4, 374–380.
Kamin, L. J. “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior, 1967: Aversive Stimulation. Coral Gables, Fla: University of Miami Press, 1968.
Kamin, L. J. Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior. New York: Appleton-Century, 1969.
Kohler, E. A. Serial compounds and trace conditioning procedures in the Kamin blocking paradigm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts—Amherst, 1979.
Kohler, E. A., &Ayres, J. J. B. The Kamin blocking effect with variable-duration CSs.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 347–350.
Maleske, R. T., &Frey, P. W. Blocking in eyelid conditioning: Effect of changing the CS-US interval and introducing an inter-trial stimulus.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 452–456.
Marchant, H. G., III, &Moore, J. W. Blocking of the rabbit’s conditioned nictitating membrane response in Kamin’s two-stage paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,101, 155–158.
Mowrer, O. H., & Lamoreaux, R. R. Avoidance conditioning and signal duration—A study of secondary motivation and reward.Psychological Monographs, 1942,54(5, Whole No. 247).
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. 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. New York: Appleton-Century, 1972.
Schneiderman, N. Interstimulus interval function of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit under delay versus trace conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1966,62, 397–402.
vom Saal, W., &Jenkins, H. M. Blocking the development of stimulus control.Learning and Motivation, 1970,1, 52–64.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant MH 28226-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health and by Biomedical Sciences Support Grant RR 07048 to the University of Massachusetts.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ayres, J.J.B., Bombace, J.C. A surprising extension of the preconditioned stimulus beyond the cotermination of the US and the added element does not alleviate blocking to the added element. Animal Learning & Behavior 10, 263–268 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212280
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212280