Abstract
2 conditioning groups received 3 trials with either a .5-sec. or a 20-sec. ISI, and then 40 trials with a 20-sec. ISI. 2 pseudoconditioning groups received the same number of CSs and UCSs in an unpaired order but differed according to whether CS duration on the first 3 trials was .6 sec. or 20.1 sec. GSR latency and magnitude were the dependent variables. Latency was greater and magnitude smaller in the pseudoconditioning than in the conditioning groups. There was little difference between the conditioning groups in either latency or magnitude. Furthermore, terminal CR latency in the conditioning groups was 4 to 5 sec., a value considerably shorter than what was expected on the basis of previous research. The data were discussed in terms of the kinds of inhibitory processes usually employed to explain such findings and also in terms of how inhibition explanations differ from “instrumental reinforcement” interpretations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
