Abstract
Two simple eyeblink conditioning experiments with random intermittent reinforcement schedules were performed. In Experiment 1, subjects had to rate their expectancy for an unconditioned stimulus (US) on a seven-level scale prior to each trial. As anticipated, expectancy for US increased with a successive conditioned stimulus (CS) alone, and decreased with successive CS-US pairings. However, Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the frequency of eyeblink conditioned responses (CRs) evolved in a direction opposite to that of expectancy changes: CRs increased, whereas expectancy for US decreased, and vice versa. The possible effect of sensitization on eyeblink response was ruled out by the lack of a run effect in an unpaired control group in Experiment 2. These results tend to disconfirm the expectancy theory of conditioning. Although they were explicitly predicted by the conventional “strength” theory of conditioning, an alternative interpretation is proposed within a cognitive framework.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baer, P. E., and Fuhrer, M. J. Cognitive factors in the concurrent differential conditioning of eyelid and skin conductance responses.Memory and Cognition, 1982,10, 135–140.
Bolles, R. C. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning.Psychological Review, 1972,79, 394–409.
Bolles, R. C., and Fanselow, M. S. Perceptual-defensive-recuperative model of fear and pain.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980,3, 291–323.
Brewer, W. F. There is no convincing evidence for operant or classical conditioning in adult human. In W. B. Weimer and D. S. Palermo (Eds.),Cognition and the Symbolic Processes. New York: Halsted Press, 1974.
Bush, R. R., and Mosteller, F. A model for stimulus generalization and discrimination.Psychological Review, 1951,58, 413–423.
Damianopoulos, E. N. Necessary and sufficient factors in classical conditioning.Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 1982,17, 215–219.
Dawson, M. E., and Furedy, J. J. The role of awareness in human differential autonomic classical conditioning: the necessary-gate hypothesis.Psychophysiology, 1976,13, 50–53.
Frcka, G., Beyts, J., Levey, A.B., and Martin, I. The role of awareness in human conditioning.Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 1983,2, 69–76.
George, C.Choix et apprentissage en situation aléatoire. Paris: CNRS, 1971.
Higgins, J. D., and Prokasy, W. F. The effect of transition probability of reinforcement in intermittent reinforcement schedules in human eyelid conditioning.Psychonomic Science, 1968,12, 69–70.
Hull, C. L.Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.
Kadlac, J. A. Cognitive factors affecting sequential dependencies in differential eyelid conditioning,Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 1979,14, 191–198.
Martin, I., and Levey, A. B.The Genesis of the Classical Conditioned Response. London: Pergamon Press, 1969.
Nicks, D. C. Prediction of sequential two-choices decisions from event runs,Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959,57, 105–114.
Pendery, M., and Maltzman, I. Instructions and the orienting reflex in “semantic conditioning” of the galvanic skin response in an innocuous situation,Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1977,106, 120–140.
Perruchet, P. Conditionnement classique chez l’homme et facteurs cognitifs: 1, Le conditionnement végétatif.Année Psychologique, 1979,79, 527–557.
Perruchet, P. Conditionnement classique chez l’homme et facteurs cognitifs: 2, Le conditionnement moteur.Année Psychologique, 1980,80, 193–219.
Perruchet, P. Programmes de description et d’analyses inférentielles de données expérimentales pour micro-ordinateurs,Informatique et Sciences Humaines, 1982,55, 87–101.
Perruchet, P. Dual nature of anticipatory classically conditioned reactions. In S. Kornblum and J. Requin (Eds.),Preparatory States and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984.
Perruchet, P. Expectancy for airpuff and conditioned eyeblinks in humans,Acta Psychologica, 1985,58, 31–44.
Prokasy, W. F., Carlton, R. A., and Higgins, J. D. Effects of nonrandom intermittent reinforcement schedules in human eyelid conditioning,Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1967,74, 282–288.
Prokasy, W. F., and Kumpfer, K. A. Conditional probability of reinforcement and sequential behavior in human conditioning with intermittent reinforcement schedules,Psychonomic Science, 1969,14, 49–50.
Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 71–80.
Ross, L. E. Cognitive factors in conditioning: The use of masking tasks in eyelid conditioning. In H. H. Kendler and J. T. Spence (Eds.),Essays in Neobehaviorism. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.
Rouanet, H., and Lecoutre, B. Specific inference in ANOVA: From significance tests to Bayesian procedures.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1983,36, 252–268.
Sears, R. J., Baker, J. S., and Frey, P. W. The eyeblink as a time-locked response: Implications for serial and second-order conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Process, 1979,5, 43–64.
Streiner, D. L., and Deans, S. J. Expectancy, anxiety, and the GSR.Psychonomic Science, 1968,10, 293–294.
Tolman, E. C.Purposive behavior in animal and man. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1932.
Williams, W. C., and Prokasy, W. F. Classical skin conductance response conditioning: Effects of random intermittent reinforcement.Psychophysiology, 1977,14, 401–407.
Wingfield, A.Human Learning and memory. An Introduction. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was supported by the CNRS (UA 656) Université René Descartes, EPHE (Laboratoire de Psychologie Différentielle), and CNAM (Service de recherches de l’INOP).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perruchet, P. A pitfall for the expectancy theory of human eyelid conditioning. Pav. J. Biol. Sci. 20, 163–170 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003653
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003653