Effects of instruction on extinction of the conditioned GSR.

Wickens, Delos D.; Allen, Charles K.; Hill, Frances A.

doi:10.1037/h0048932

Cited by 41 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present finding that responding during extinction tends to decline when subjects have information that reinforcements are not avail-able is consistent with and extends previous findings that showed that classically conditioned autonomic responses (e.g., Notterman, Schoenfeld, and Bersh, 1953;Wickens, Allen, and Hill, 1963) and motoric responses (e.g., Lindley and Moyer, 1961) decline more rapidly during extinction when humans are instructed that reinforcements have been discontinued. It is also in line with the previously mentioned data of Baron et al (1969) which showed that low response rates are produced by humans during both fixed-interval reinforcement and extinction when subjects are instructed about the contingencies of reinforcement.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Instructional Control of Human Operant Responding During Extinction Following Fixed‐ratio Conditioning

Weiner¹

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When given pre-conditioning instructions correctly indicating the maximum number of reinforcements obtainable, subjects made few responses during extinction following FR 10 conditioning. More extinction responses occurred when the maximum-reinforcement instructions suggested that reinforcements were obtainable during extinction. The highest rates of responding during extinction were produced by subjects who had no maximum-reinforcement instructions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Instructional Control of Human Operant Responding During Extinction Following Fixed‐ratio Conditioning

Weiner¹

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Analysis of the conditioning data indicated that a tone CS became more effective in blocking the alpha rhythm after it was paired with a light US only for the uninformed subjects that had LURs (see Figure 2). Unlike other conditioning studies (Gormezano & Moore, 1962;Wickens et al, 1963;Wieland et al, 1963), in this experiment US intensity did not eliminate the effects of instructions on CR efficacy, since there was not a significant effect for this factor on conditioned alpha blocking when measured as proportion reduction values or latency scores (see Figures 2 and 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…It also has been reported that the effects of instructions on conditioned responses or CRs may be a function of US intensity (Gormezano & Moore, 1962; Wickens, Allen, & Hill, 1963;Wieland, Stein, & Hamilton, 1963). Furthermore, Harvey and Wickens (1971) found that for the GSR response system, instructions influenced the magnitude of the UR, and it was through this link that CR efficacy may have been altered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Instructions influence UR magnitude and conditioned alpha blocking

Braggio

Putney

1980

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tried to assess the effects of instructions on conditioned alpha blocking. To do this, an equal number of college students were first assigned to an informed group (lG) or an uninformed group (UIG) and administered the same number and sequence of pseudoconditioning, conditioning, and extinction trials, using one of three different light intensities. The reinforcing property of a light US was also assessed by measuring UR magnitude in pseudoconditioning for individual subjects; the college students were later grouped with respect to the presence of low or high URs. It was found that UR magnitude, not US intensity, was predictive of conditioned alpha blocking. Nonetheless, conditioned alpha blocking occurred only for the subjects in the UIG who had low URs. For this group, conditioI1ed alpha blocking was manifested as an increased effectiveness of the CS in blocking the alpha rhythm following a series of paired CS-US trials, and longer latencies of the alpha CR in conditioning and extinction as compared with the OR-produced responses in pseudoconditioning. The use of UR magnitUde as a measure of the effectiveness of the US in producing conditioned alpha blocking and the effects of instructions on the conditionability of the EEG response system are discussed.Following an early report by Cook and Harris (1937) showing that instructions can be as effective as paired CS-US trials in producing a GSR, there has been a revived interest in examining the role of instructions in classical conditioning (Dawson & Furedy, 1976 found that for the GSR response system, instructions influenced the magnitude of the UR, and it was through this link that CR efficacy may have been altered. Maltzman, Gould, Pendery, and Wolff (1977) reported that UR magnitude was an accurate predictor of CRs for a semantic conditioning study using the GSR response system. These investigators found better semantic conditioning in subjects showing effective UR magnitudes that were measured before the start of the conditioning trials. In a recently completed study, Braggio and Putney (1980) reported thatJor the EEG response system subjects with low UR magnitudes in pseudoconditioning demonstrated conditioned alpha blocking, while those with high UR magnitudes did not. These results suggest that the reinforcing effects of a given US may depend on one or more subject-defined factors of physiological activation that can be tapped by the UR magnitude factor prior to the start of the conditioning trials (Braggio & Putney, 1980). The purpose of the present experiment was to determine if the conditionability of the EEG response system was influenced by instructions and light intensity; and, if so, were the effect(s) mediated by the UR magnitude variable? METHODSubjects From a presample of 34 college students, a total of 24 undergraduates with a median age of 22.4 years (range 18-28) were 0090-5046/80/030398-07$00.95/0

show abstract

“…For example, eyelid conditioning is found to be superior at a longer ISI when a discrimination rather than a simple conditioning paradigm is used (Hartman & Grant, 1962). A number of investigators (Grings, Lockhart & Dameron, 1962;Wickens, Allen & Hill, 1963;Prescott, 1965) have suggested that the discrimination paradigm ought to be used because it provides a much more sensitive control over nonconditioning variables than the control group design. This no longer seems to be the best reason for use of the discrimination design.…”

Section: Methodological Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comments Regarding Multiple Response Phenomena in Long Interstimulus Interval Conditioning

Lockhart

1966

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the CS-US interval is longer than the latency of an autonomic response, multiple responses are obtained both during and after the CS-US interval on acquisition test or extinction trials. Certain terminologic, methodologic and conceptual problems concerning this multiple response phenomenon are outlined. A nontheoretical and, we hope, unambiguous terminology is presented. Methodologic problems concerning multiple-response measurement, between-and withinsuhject designs, trace and delay paradigms, intramodal and intermodal paradigms, and incompleteness of data presentation are discussed. It is felt that empirical analysis of the multiple response phenomenon will have important ramifications for our understanding of autonomic hehavior in the classical conditioning situation.

show abstract

Effects of instruction on extinction of the conditioned GSR.

Cited by 41 publications

References 7 publications

Instructional Control of Human Operant Responding During Extinction Following Fixed‐ratio Conditioning

Instructional Control of Human Operant Responding During Extinction Following Fixed‐ratio Conditioning

Instructions influence UR magnitude and conditioned alpha blocking

Comments Regarding Multiple Response Phenomena in Long Interstimulus Interval Conditioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About