Intensity of the Unconditional Stimulus as a Factor in Conditioning Out of Awareness

Wieland, William F.; Stein, Mary Kay; Hamilton, Charles

doi:10.1097/00006842-196303000-00003

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a study by Pendery and Maltzman (1977), it was found that students in the semantic conditioning situation usually discovered the contingency within three or four trials, or they did not discover it it all. Other investigators have reported the same phenomenon (Wieland, Stein, & Hamilton, 1963). Nonverbalizers in the Pendery and Maltzman experiment also displayed the tendency seen here of giving larger responses than verbalizers to the control words initially and then declining to the same level of response magnitude, although the difference was not statistically significant.…”

Section: Relations Between Verbalization and Conditioningsupporting

confidence: 78%

Galvanic skin response-orienting reflex and semantic conditioning and generalization with different unconditioned stimuli.

Maltzman¹,

Langdon²,

Pendery³

et al. 1977

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There were 280 college students who served in a semantic conditioning and generalization experiment where galvanic skin response (GSR) and cephalic vasomotor response measures were obtained as well as semantic differential ratings of the control words and the critical conditioned stimulus (CS) and generalization test words. Different groups of students received either 110-dB white noise, 95-dB white noise, 80-dB white noise, a 110-dB tone, or an 80-db tone as the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) during conditioning.An initial habituation series of 15 neutral words was presented. This was followed by semantic conditioning, which consisted of 10 presentations of the word PLANT followed in 10 sec by a UCS. Different unrelated filler words were interspersed among the conditioning trials. A semantic generalization test followed in which different groups received five unreinforced presentations of either TREE or STEM, which were associates of the CS word, or MUSIC, a word unrelated to the CS or other generalization test words.Differential semantic conditioning and generalization were manifested in the GSR index of the orienting reflex and semantic differential ratings. Both measures varied with the UCS condition. In terms of both the GSR and semantic differential ratings, conditioning and generalization were apparent only in students who could verbalize the appropriate stimulus contingencies.The extinction test of generalization indicated that reliable differential generalization occurred to all three test words, the unrelated word MUSIC as well as the two associates PLANT and STEM. What is more, differential semantic generalization of the GSR increased over the five test trials.

show abstract

Section: Relations Between Verbalization and Conditioningsupporting

confidence: 78%

Galvanic skin response-orienting reflex and semantic conditioning and generalization with different unconditioned stimuli.

Maltzman¹,

Langdon²,

Pendery³

et al. 1977

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, additional support for the level of awareness of the S is tentatively given by our physiological data. Wieland, Stein, and Hamilton (1963) reported that it is possible to condition an increase in heart rate in anticipation of an electric shock without the S being aware of the CS-UCS relationship. *Ss who verbally reported awareness exhibited more conditioning and less generalization than those who did not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Awareness on Cortical Evoked Potentials to Conditioned Affective Stimuli

et al. 1969

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A previous paper of ours (Begleiter, Gross, & Kissin, 1967) demonstrated that it was possible to condition affective meaning to meaningless figures (CS), and significantly alter visual evoked potential (VEP) amplitudes and latencies to them, without the S's awareness of the CS–UCS relationship (Experiment I, totally unaware). In the present study some Ss were deliberately informed that a CS–UCS connection existed; however, the exact nature of their relationship was not divulged (Experiment II, slightly aware). Other Ss were explicitly informed of the correct CS–UCS contingency, and entire conditioning paradigm (Experiment III, fully aware). One physiological (VEP) and two behavioral (interflash interval and semantic differential) indices of conditioning were obtained during an extinction procedure, and demonstrated significant differences between CRs in Experiment II, but none in Experiment III. VEP amplitudes to positive and negative CSs were enhanced in Experiment II, and suppressed in Experiment I, in comparison to the neutral CS. This effect was most marked in responses to the negative CS. It is suggested that level of awareness of the CS–UCS contingency might be reflected in our physiological index of conditioning ‐ VEP amplitude.

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: 81%

“…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: 92%

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

Intensity of the Unconditional Stimulus as a Factor in Conditioning Out of Awareness

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

Galvanic skin response-orienting reflex and semantic conditioning and generalization with different unconditioned stimuli.

Galvanic skin response-orienting reflex and semantic conditioning and generalization with different unconditioned stimuli.

The Effects of Awareness on Cortical Evoked Potentials to Conditioned Affective Stimuli

Instructions influence UR magnitude and conditioned alpha blocking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About