Abstract
Three experiments were conducted employing a continuous measure of conditional stimulus/unconditional stimulus (CS/US) contingencies as perceived by the subject (i.e., subjective contingency or SC). It is argued that direct measurement of relational learning, as indexed by SC, can lead to a better understanding of Pavlovian conditioning processes. The first two experiments applied this approach to a methodologic controversy, raising the debate from a procedure-based argument to testing what the subject actually learns about CS/US relationships. While the issue was not resolved, testable hypotheses for future research were generated from the data. The third experiment contrasted the contingency stimulus-stimulus (S-S) account of Pavlovian conditioning with an earlier stimulus-response (S-R) continguity-reinforcement account. In this experiment, both SC and skin resistance were measured. Evidence for the existence of both cognitive-propositional and response-learning processes in conditioning was obtained.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Badia, P., and Defran, R. H. Orienting responses and GSR conditioning: A dilemma.Psychological Review, 1970,77, 171–181.
Champion, R. A., and Jones, J. E. Drive level (D) and extinction in classical aversive conditioning.The Journal of General Psychology, 1962,67, 61–67.
Dawson, M. E. Can classical conditioning occur without contingency learning? A review and evaluation of the evidence.Psychophysiology, 1973,10, 82–6.
Furedy, J. J. Reinforcement through UCS offset in classical aversive conditioning.Australian Journal of Psychology, 1965,17, 205–212.
Furedy, J. J. Explicitly-unpaired and truly-random CS⇽ontrols in human classical differential autonomic conditioning.Psychophysiology, 1971,8, 497–503.
Furedy, J. J. Some limits on the cognitive control of conditioned autonomic behavior.Psychophysiology, 1973,70, 108–111.
Furedy, J. J. “Negative results”: Abolish the name but honor the same. In J. P. Sutcliffe (Ed.),Conceptual Analysis and Method in Psychology. Studies in Honor of W. M. O’Neil. Sydney: University of Sydney Press, 1978.
Furedy, J. J., and Arabian, J. M. A Pavlovian psychophysiological perspective on the OR: The facts of the matter. In H. D. Kimmel, E. H. van Olst, and J. F. Orlebeke (Eds.),The Orienting Reflex in Humans. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlebaum Associated, 1979.
Furedy, J. J., and Poulos, C. X. Short-interval classical SCR conditioning and the stimulus-sequencechange-elicited OR: The case of the empirical red herring.Psychophysiology, 1977,14, 351–359.
Furedy, J. J., and Schiffmann, K. Test of the propriety of the traditional discriminative control procedures in Pavlovian electrodermal and plethysmographic conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,97, 161–164.
Furedy, J. J., and Schiffmann, K. Concurrent measurement of autonomic and cognitive processes in a test of the traditional discriminative control procedure for Pavlovian electrodermal conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,100, 210–217.
Furedy, J. J., and Schiffmann, K. Interrelationships between human classical differential electrodermal conditioning, orienting reaction, responsivity and awareness of stimulus contingencies.Psychophysiology, 1974,11, 58–67.
Furedy, J. J., Poulos, C. X., and Schiffmann, K. Contingency theory and classical autonomic excitatory and inhibitory conditioning; Some problems of assessment and interpretation.Psychophysiology, 1975a,12, 98–195.
Furedy, J. J., Poulos, C. X., and Schiffmann, K. Logical problems with Prokasy’s assessment of contingency relations in classical skin conductance conditioning.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1975b,7, 521–523.
Jones, J. E. Contiguity and reinforcement in relation to CS-UCS intervals in classical aversive conditioning.Psychological Review, 1962,69, 176–186.
Kamin, L. J. Temporal and intensity characteristics of the conditioned stimulus. In W. F. Prokasy (Ed.),Classical Conditioning. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1967.
Kimble, G. A.Hilgard and Marquis’ Conditioning and Learning (2nd edition). New York: AppletonCentury Crofts, 1961.
Lockhart, R. A. Cognitive processes and the multiple response phenomenon.Psychophysiology, 1973,10, 112–118.
Prokasy, W. F. Random control procedures in classical skin conductance conditioning.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1975a,7, 516–520.
Prokasy, W. F. Random controls: A rejoinder.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1975b,7, 524–526.
Prokasy, W. F., Williams, W. C., Kumpfer, K. I., Lee, W. Y., and Jensen, W. R. Differential SCR conditioning with two control baselines: Random signal and signal absent.Psychophysiology, 1973,10, 145–153.
Prokasy, W. F. Personal communication, 1976.
Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 71–80.
Schiffinann, K., and Furedy, J. J. Failures of contingency and cognitive factors to affect long-interval differential Pavlovian autonomic conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,96, 215–218.
Schiffmann, K., and Furedy, J. J. The effect of CS-US contingency variation of GSR and on subjective CS-US relational awareness.Memory & Cognition. 1977,5, 273–277.
Segal, E. M., and Lachman, R. Complex behavior or higher mental process: Is there a paradigm shift?American Psychologist, 1972,27, 46–55.
Szalai, J. P., and Furedy, J. J. Is the effective tilt US onset merely coy and elusive or should we welcome back backward conditioning—Pavlov’s prodigal son?Psychophysiology, 1978,15, 272 (Abstract).
Trapold, M. A., Hornzie, M., and Rutledge, E. Backward conditioning and UCR latency.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964,67, 387–391.
Zimny, G. H., Stern, J. A., and Field, S. P. Effects of CS and UCS relationships on electrodermal response and heart rate.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,72, 177–181.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Furedy, J.J., Arabian, J.M., Thiels, E. et al. Direct and continuous measurement of relational learning in human pavlovian conditioning. Pav. J. Biol. Sci. 17, 69–79 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03002001
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03002001