Properties of compound conditioned stimuli and their components.

1968 ◽  
Vol 70 (6, Pt.1) ◽  
pp. 611-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Baker
Keyword(s):  
2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendi Fellner ◽  
Kim Odell ◽  
Allison Corwin ◽  
Lisa Davis ◽  
Cathy Goonen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Lane Williams ◽  
Christopher C Conway

Clinically significant fears and phobias can be acquired vicariously. Witnessing a demonstrator’s defensive reaction to potentially dangerous objects and situations can instill conditioned threat responses in the observer. The present study concentrates on individual differences in this social learning process. Specifically, we hypothesized that dispositional empathy modulates vicarious threat conditioning. We examined university students’ (N = 150) conditioned threat responding after they observed strangers undergo Pavlovian threat conditioning. There was evidence of a substantial conditioned defensive response (Cohen’s d = 0.66), as indexed by elevated skin conductance reactions during participants’ direct exposure to the vicariously conditioned stimuli. Contrary to expectations, indices of dispositional empathy were weakly related to the size of conditioned responses (median r = .04). Our results confirm that vicarious threat learning can be evaluated experimentally, but they do not support the hypothesis that empathy amplifies this process. The preregistration, stimulus materials, data, and analysis code for this study are available at https://osf.io/h6hm2.


2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (10) ◽  
pp. S141
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Parisi ◽  
Carissa Weis ◽  
Ashley Huggins ◽  
Kenneth Bennett ◽  
Greg Hajcak ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (7) ◽  
pp. 1607-1625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel E Alarcón ◽  
Charlotte Bonardi ◽  
Andrew R Delamater

Four experiments compared the effect of forward and backward conditioning procedures on the ability of conditioned stimuli (CS) to elevate instrumental responding in a Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) task. Two responses were each trained with one distinct outcome (R1->O1, R2->O2), either concurrently (Experiment 1) or separately (Experiments 2, 3 and 4). Then, in Experiments 1 and 2, four CSs were either followed or preceded by one outcome (A->O1, B->O2, O1->C, O2->D). In Experiment 3, each CS was preceded and followed by an outcome: for one group of participants, both outcomes were identical (e.g., O1->A->O1, O2->B->O2), but for the other, they were different (e.g., O1->A->O2, O2->B->O1). In Experiment 4, two CSs were preceded and followed by identical outcomes, and two CSs by different outcomes. In the PIT tests, participants performed R1 and R2 in the presence and absence of the CSs. In Experiments 1 and 2, only the CSs followed by outcomes in Pavlovian training elevated responding. In Experiments 3 and 4, all the CSs elevated responding but based on the outcome that followed them in training. These results support the stimulus-outcome-response (S-O-R) mechanism of specific PIT, according to which CSs elevate responding via activation of its associated outcome representation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document