Abstract
With .2-sec bursts of white noise as both conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (UCS), conditioning of first-interval skin conductance responses was obtained when the intensity of the CS equaled and exceeded that of the UCS. There was no evidence that second-interval response conditioning occurred. Nonspecific response frequencies were also affected by the variations in stimulus intensity, this raising some question about typical controls employed in SCR conditioning. There was some evidence that second interval responses were suppressed by the intense CS values. It was concluded that the existence of simple conditioning with a CS/UCS intensity ratio equal to or greater than unity was contrary to the Pavlovian proposition that a CS must be biologically less salient than the UCS in order for conditioning to occur. It was noted, however, that the suppression of second-interval responses might indicate that anticipatory CRs which are not confounded with orienting reflexes are prevented from exhibiting a conditioning effect when a high CS/UCS intensity ratio is employed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Badia, P., & Defran, R. H. Orienting responses and GSR conditioning: A dilemma. Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 171–181.
Grice, R. G. Conditioning and a decision theory of response evocation. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Grings, W. W., & Schell, A. M. Effects of trace versus delay conditioning, ISI variability, and instructions on UCR diminution. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 90, 136–140.
Hull, C. L. Stimulus intensity dynamism (V) and stimulus generalization. Psychological Review, 1949, 56, 67–76.
Kimmel, H. D. Amount of conditioning and intensity of conditioned stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58,283–288.
Kimmel, H. D., Hill, F. A., & Morrow, M. Strength of GSR and avoidance conditioning as a function of CS intensity. Psychological Reports, 1962, 11, 103–109.
Kumpfer, K. L. Effects of instructions on differential conditioing of the electrodermal response during acquisition, transfer, and extinction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1972.
Lockhart, R. A. Dominance and contiguity as interactive determinants of automatic conditioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1965.
Logan, F. A. A note on stimulus intensity dynamism (V). Psychological Review, 1954, 61, 77–80.
Orlebeke, J. F., & Van Olst, E. H. Learning and performance as a function of CS intensity in a delayed GSR conditioning situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 483–487.
Pavlov, I. P.Conditioned reflexes. (Translated by G. V. Anrep). London: Oxford University Press, 1927.
Perkins, C. C., Jr. The relation between conditioned stimulus intensity and response strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46, 225–231.
Prokasy, W. F. SCORIT: A computer subroutine for scoring electrodermal responses. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1974, 6, 49–52.
Prokasy, W. F., & Ebel, H. C. Three components of the classifically conditioned GSR in human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 247–256.
Prokasy, W. F., & Kumpfer, K. L. Classical conditioning. In W. F. Prokasy & D. C. Raskin (Eds.),Electrodermal activity in psychological research. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Razran, G. The dominance-contiguity theory of the acquisition of classical conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 1957, 54, 1–46.
Williams, W. C. Classical skin conductance conditioning: Intermittent reinforcement Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Utah, 1973.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by NIMh Grant MH15353 to the senior author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prokasy, W.F., Williams, W.C. & Clark, C.G. Skin conductance response conditioning with CS intensities equal to and greater than UCS intensity. Memory & Cognition 3, 277–281 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212911
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212911