Skip to main content
Log in

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolles, R. C. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning.Psychological Review, 1972,79, 394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolles, R. C., and Fanselow, M. S. Perceptual-defensive-recuperative model of fear and pain.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980,3, 291–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, R. R., and Mosteller, F. A model for stimulus generalization and discrimination.Psychological Review, 1951,58, 413–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Damianopoulos, E. N. Necessary and sufficient factors in classical conditioning.Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 1982,17, 215–219.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, C.Choix et apprentissage en situation aléatoire. Paris: CNRS, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, C. L.Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadlac, J. A. Cognitive factors affecting sequential dependencies in differential eyelid conditioning,Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 1979,14, 191–198.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, I., and Levey, A. B.The Genesis of the Classical Conditioned Response. London: Pergamon Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicks, D. C. Prediction of sequential two-choices decisions from event runs,Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959,57, 105–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P. Conditionnement classique chez l’homme et facteurs cognitifs: 1, Le conditionnement végétatif.Année Psychologique, 1979,79, 527–557.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P. Conditionnement classique chez l’homme et facteurs cognitifs: 2, Le conditionnement moteur.Année Psychologique, 1980,80, 193–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P. Programmes de description et d’analyses inférentielles de données expérimentales pour micro-ordinateurs,Informatique et Sciences Humaines, 1982,55, 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P. Dual nature of anticipatory classically conditioned reactions. In S. Kornblum and J. Requin (Eds.),Preparatory States and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P. Expectancy for airpuff and conditioned eyeblinks in humans,Acta Psychologica, 1985,58, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures.Psychological Review, 1967,74, 71–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D. L., and Deans, S. J. Expectancy, anxiety, and the GSR.Psychonomic Science, 1968,10, 293–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, E. C.Purposive behavior in animal and man. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, W. C., and Prokasy, W. F. Classical skin conductance response conditioning: Effects of random intermittent reinforcement.Psychophysiology, 1977,14, 401–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wingfield, A.Human Learning and memory. An Introduction. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003653

Keywords

Navigation