Abstract
Subjects performed in a differential eyelid conditioning paradigm with either airpuff or infraorbital shock as the UCS. The trial series included interpolated UCS-alone presentations, and subjects rated UCS aversiveness on all trials. Ratings of the airpuff, but not the shock UCS, were negatively correlated with the magnitude of anticipatory eyelid CRs, as predicted by preparatory response or law-of-effect models of classical conditioning. However, subjects showed no tendency to rate signaled (CS-UCS) trials as less aversive than unsignaled (UCS-alone) trials, and showed no significant preference for the signaled ucs. These results suggest that the operation of informational control and preparatory response factors is more complex than is assumed by available theories. Also, instrumental shaping and preparatory response mechanisms may not be involved in the acquisition of CRs.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Berlyne, D. E.,Conflict. arousal, and curiosity, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Bowers, K. S., The effects of UCS temporal uncertainty on heart rate and pain.Psychophysiology, 1971,8, 382–389.
D’Amato, M. R. Derived motives.Annual Review of Psychology, 1974,25. 83–106.
Furedy, J. J. Test of the preparatory adaptive response interpretation of aversive classical autonomic conditioning.Journal ot Experimental Ps.vchology, 1970,84, 301–307.
Furedy, J. J. An integrative progress report on informanonal control in humans: Some laboratory findings and methodological claims.Australian Journal of Psychology, 1975,27,61–83.
Furedy, J. J. &Doon, A. N. Autonomic responses and verbal reports in lurther tests of the preparatory-adapnve-response interpretation ot remtbrcement.Journal oJ Expenmental Psychology, 1971,89, 258–204.
Gormezano, I., &Coleman, S. R. The law of effect,and CR contingent modificanon of the UCS.Condittonal Reflex, 1973,8, 41–56.
Gormezano,, I.. &Fernald, C. D. Human eyehd conditioning with paraorb~tal shock as the US.Psychonomtc Sctence. 1971,25. 88–90.
Hartman, T. F., &Grant, D. A. Differential eyehd conditioning as a function of the CS-UCS intervalJournal of Experimental Psychology, 1962,64, 131–136.
Lykken, D. T. Preception in the rat: Autonomic response to shock as a function of length of warmng mterval.Science. 1902.137, 665–666.
Murray, H. G., &Carruthers, B. C. Human eyehd conditioning with airpuff vs. tnfraorbital shock as the UCS.Canadtan Journal of Psychology, 1974,28, 269–287.
Perkins, C. C., JR. Reintbrcement in classical condinoning. In H. H. Kendler & J. T. Spence (Eds),Essays in neobehaviorism. A memotaal volume to Kenneth W. Spence. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1971.
Prokasy, W. F. Classical eyehd condinomng: Experimenter operations, task demands and response shaping. In W. F. Prokasy (Ed.),Classical conditioning A symposium. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.
Seligman, M. E. P. Chronic fear produced by unpredictable electrac shock.Journal of Comparattve and Physiological Psychology, 1968,66, 402–411.
Spence, K. W.. &Platt, J. R. UCS intensity and performance in eyelid condttioning.Psycholog&al Bulletin, 1966,65, 1–10.
Suboskt, M. D., Brace, T. G., Jarrold, L. A., Teller, K. J. &Dieter, R. Intersnmulus interval and time estimanon in ratings of signaled shock aversiveness.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972.96, 407–415.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Furedy, J.J., Murray, H.G. Evaluation of informational control and preparatory response factors in classical aversive conditioning. Memory & Cognition 4, 409–414 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213197
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213197