The Backward Conditioning Curve

Spooner, Alice; Kellogg, W. N.

doi:10.2307/1416914

Cited by 72 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several investigators have reported the appearance of CRs following a few backward pairings (e.g., Switzer, 1930;Wolfle, 1930), whereas those assessing the effects of multiple backward pairings have found either no conditioning (e.g., Bernstein, 1934;Porter, 1938) or conditioned inhibition (e.g., Moscovitch & LoLordo, 1968). Spooner and Kellogg (1947) administered different numbers of backward pairings and reported that CRs appeared following initial pairings but diminished with repeated pairings. Heth (1976) also reported that backward pairings produced a biphasic acquisition function, with the CS controlling excitatory tendencies after 10 pairings and inhibitory tendencies after 160 pairings.…”

Section: Early Studies Of Backward Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence.

Spetch¹,

Wilkie²,

Pinel³

1981

Psychological Bulletin

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an apparent discrepancy between the widespread view that backward conditioning does not occur and the experimental evidence which suggests that it does. Backward pairing of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli frequently has resulted in effects similar to those produced by forward pairing, and the results of several recent experiments have established that such effects cannot be attributed to factors other than stimulus pairing per se. Surprisingly, even some of the earlier experiments that provided the basis for the current skepticism concerning backward conditioning provide evidence of its existence. The failure to recognize backward conditioning as a legitimate phenomenon seems to reflect theoretical biases rather than a paucity of empirical evidence. Thus backward conditioning and its properties merit renewed interest and rcexamination.

show abstract

Section: Early Studies Of Backward Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence.

Spetch¹,

Wilkie²,

Pinel³

1981

Psychological Bulletin

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Any further dissipation after that would be too slight to result in a detectable incubation effect. Spooner and Kellogg (1947), having discovered that the backward conditioning curve was nonmonotonic, concluded that backward conditioning reflected processes fundamentally different from those involved in forward conditioning. In contrast, and consistent with the present results, opponent-process theory holds that the processes are identical.…”

Section: A Theory Of Backward Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spooner & Kellogg, 1947) is whether the excitatory effects of forward and backward pairings of CSs and USs really are similar. Do the two forms of apparently excitatory conditioning involve the same learning processes?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning in rats: Acquisition, retention, extinction, and spontaneous recovery

Shurtleff

Ayres

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water-deprived male albino rats received a single presentation of a 4-sec electric-grid-shock unconditioned stimulus followed by a 4-sec white-noise conditioned stimulus (a single backward conditioning trial.) Excitation conditioned to the noise was indexed in terms of the noise's subsequent ability to suppress ongoing licking of a water tube. The main findings were: (1) Excitation was acquired and was retained over a 30-day retention interval; (2) although excitation was retained, it did not grow significantly stronger during the interval (there was no incubation effect); (3)excitation was extinguished by noise-alone trials; and (4)excitation showed more spontaneous recovery when extinction trials were separated by 29 days than when separated by only 1 day. Because these results are similar to those in the forward conditioning literature, they seem consistent with, but do not demand, the view that forward and backward excitatory conditioning involve similar learning processes. A current theory that embraces this view is opponent-process theory (Solomon & Corbit, 1974). We suggest that opponent-process theory can (1)account for existing backward conditioning data, (2) explain the phenomenon of incubation that has previously been described in the literature while simultaneously explaining its absence in the present study, and (3)integrate certain nonmonotonic acquisition phenomena that have appeared in both the forward and backward conditioning literatures.Reports that conditioned excitation can be established through backward conditioning procedures have for years met with skepticism (e.g., Kimble, 1961;Mackintosh, 1974;Osgood, 1953;Underwood, 1949). Indeed, backward conditioning procedures have often been used in classical conditioning experiments as control procedures designed to leave the conditioned stimulus (CS) neutral. Furthermore, when this practice was eventually criticized (Rescorla, 1967), the criticism was not that the CS might become excitatory but, rather, that it might acquire an opposite, inhibitory tendency. Such conditioned inhibition is clearly predicted by several modern theories of conditioning, including contingency theory (Rescorla, 1967) and discrepancy theory (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). More generally, conditioned inhibition is predicted by any theory that emphasizes the information that CSs provide about unconditioned stimuli (USs). Since backward CSs usually predict relatively long periods of US absence (e.g., Moscovitch & LoLordo, 1968), they are expected to acquire conditioned properties opposite to those of CSs that predict the imminent occurrence of USs. Empirical support for this predicted conditioned inhibition has been accumulating in recent years and now appears substantial (Heth, 1976;Maier, Rapaport, & Wheatley, 1976;Moscovitch & LoLordo, 1968;Plotkin & Oakley, 1975;Siegel & Domjan, 1971, 1974. In addition, it has also been shown that backward (US-CS) pairings can serve to extinguish excitatory conditioning based on forward (CS-US) pairings (Ayres, Mahoney, Proulx, & Benedict,...

show abstract

“…In direct opposition to this evidence, Maier, Rapaport, and Wheatley (1976), Moscovitch (1972), Moscovitch and LoLordo (1968), Pavlov (1928), Plotkin and Oakley (1975), and Siegel and Domjan (1971, Experiment 1;1974, conditioned suppression experiment) reported that backward CSs acquire "inhibitory" properties. Still other investigators (Bernstein , 1934 ;Harris, 1941;Spooner & Kellogg, 1947) have contended that nonassociative factors such as pseudoconditioning or sensitization are responsible for the initial responding to the backward CS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

One-trial backward fear conditioning in rats as a function of US intensity

Burkhardt

1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Backward Conditioning Curve

Cited by 72 publications

References 0 publications

Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence.

Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence.

One-trial backward excitatory fear conditioning in rats: Acquisition, retention, extinction, and spontaneous recovery

One-trial backward fear conditioning in rats as a function of US intensity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About