Louka Livernois

1968418

Discussion
This study aimed to test the effect of prior training to allergenic stimulus on subsequent

learning in compound stimulus (more than one stimulus at a time) tests. The theoretical model of

Rescorla Wagner on learning could be used to form the hypothesis that allergenic responding

(probability) would be highest for stimulus Y on test trials after BY++ compound training due to

the magnitude in error of Y for predicting the compound CS-US association with the salience or

intensity of the allergenic substance. The results, in line with the hypothesis, indicated that

during the test phase, CS presentation of Y corresponded to the greatest likelihood in the

estimation of allergic creation (≈ 95%) compared to Z (≈ 60%) and X (≈ 15%). In line with the

hypothesis, response intensity during X, Y, and Z testing seemed to correlate with how much was

learned about the CS's ability to predict the US based on the novelty or surprise of that US (the

allergenic substance). In Phase 1, Mr. Hungry learned a mild (+) association between substance

C and the US (or the allergenic), a nonexistent (-) one between substance B and the US and an

intense (++) one with substance A and the US. The low-responding on-test trials for X might be

best explained by a blocking effect, a phenomenon observed in an experiment by Kamin 1969. In

that experiment (1969), the procedures were divided into stages 1, 2 and a test phase. In stage 1,

the control group received no training while the experimental group, called the blocking group,

received pairings between a Shock (US) and a light (Cs) to form a strong association. In stage 2,

the control and Blocking groups received compound stimulus training between Noise, Light and

shock. Finally, in the test trials, the noise stimulus was presented to measure the response of both

groups. The results demonstrated that the test stimulus or the noise produced much less response

when an association had been previously learned between another stimulus and the US (blocking

group). Similarly to this experiment, groups in conditions X and Z had received prior training
Louka Livernois
1968418

between a CS and a US in Phase 1, which then impacted the response salience in test trials

depending on the unexpectedness of strength in associations (++ or +) as Rescorla Wagner's

model predicts. The main difference, however, was that there was no proper control group in our

experiment, meaning that for each group, there was the absence of an extra comparative group

that did not have a pretraining phase. The lack of control groups is problematic because no real

correlation can be established due to the absence of data on the baseline for test trials without

preconditioning. After all, the results may be due to extraneous variables like the environment or

the differences in the foodstuff's ability to cause allergies. Understanding allergies is essential for

improving health preventive interventions, but it has not been studied extensively in the field of

Pavlovian conditioning. Based on the results suggesting that blocked allergenic responses based

on prior training with other allergens is possible, future studies should see which foods or

substances are more efficient at blocking the formation of these new allergenic associations.
Louka Livernois
1968418

Works Cited
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, Surprise, Attention, and Conditioning. In B. A. Campbell, &
R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment Aversive Behavior (pp. 279-296). New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Robert A. Rescorla,Variation in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement
following prior inhibitory conditioning, Learning and Motivation, Volume 2, Issue 2,
1972, Pages 113-123,ISSN 0023-9690, https://doi.org/10.1016/0023-9690(71)90002-6.