Abstract
Two groups were presented with pseudoconditioning procedures identical with respect to the mean and standard deviation of the interstimulus intervals involved, but differing with respect to the proportion of interstimulus intervals occurring at particular ranges. Confirming and extending the results of Boneau (1958) and of Prokasy et al. (1963), differences in modal interstimulus intervals resulted in correlated changes in mean response latency. These findings are interpreted as supporting the view that the difference between responses obtained with conditioning and pseudoconditioning procedures is quantitative rather than qualitative.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Boneau, C. A. The interstimulus interval and the latency of the conditioned eyelid response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 464–472.
Burstein, R. On the distinction between conditioning and pseudoconditioning. Psychophysiology, 1973, 10, 61–66.
Burstein, K. R., & Epstein, S. Primary stimulus generalization as a function of objective and subjective definition of the stimulus dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 124–131.
Ebel, H. C., & Prokasy, W. F. Classical eyelid conditioning as a function of sustained and shifted interstimulus intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 52–58.
Grether, W. F. Pseudo-conditioning without paired stimulation encountered in attempted backward conditioning. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1938, 25, 91–96
Kling, J. W. & Riggs, L. A. Woodworth and Schlosberg’s Experimental Psychology (3rd ed.) Vol. II.. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.
Kimble, G. A. Hilgard and Marquis’ conditioning and learning. (2nd ed.) New York: Appleton, 1961.
Mcdonald, D. G. & Johnson, L. C. A re-analysis of GSR conditioning. Psychophysiology, 1965, 1, 291–295.
Mowrer, O. H. & Aiken, E. G. Contiguity vs. drive-reduction in conditioned fear. American Journal of Psychology, 1954, 67, 26–38.
Prokasy, W. F. Ebel, H. C, & Thompson, D. D. Response shaping at long interstimulus intervals in classical eyelid conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 138–141.
Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 71–80.
Tyrsky, B., Watson, P. D., & O’Connell, D. N. A concentric shock electrode for pain stimulation. Psychophysiology, 1965, 1, 296–298.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant APA-193 from the National Research Council to the junior author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ledwidge, B., Burstein, K.R. Pseudoconditioning as a function of specific schedules of interstimulus intervals. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 7, 495–497 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337261
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337261