co COGNITIVE FACTORS IN ELECTRODERMAL CONDITIONING WILLIAM W. GRINGS nicensity of Southern Callforaia Am analyse is mae of concepts central to explanation of cognitive determi: an anal rodemal changes in condiconing. tuations. Past sues Baye ee anally induced taak set awareness of stimulus cntingenlc Ce Spay of simultaneous earning at diferent levels Current dues eraphasie. verbally determined. cham ‘igniseance ‘aera cpannes im pereption of relations among stimolus evenie 10 of stimu ame utions electrodermal activity is seen as a sensitive indlea}or Conditioning a odulatons of arousal which accompany proccss a aes of onentation, anipation, expectation, preparation, hd slenadinduced adaptation or defense Afer numerous eitly studies demoastrated of vneoretial-methodologiea! sees involving tna nee Buty of conditioning the clectro- cognition for the elctrocermal respon Fremat response, that response was adopted sensitive to shifts of atienttt ‘and the mo- Gera Paty for studies of conditioning mentary changes in arousal whic seat caer ess ansured 10 be involuntary changes in cognition that jt is Oops ible to pectin from the influence of subject verbali- eliminate. cognitive factors completely from aoe ee the tine of publication of Hilgard conditioning, observations) Sruaiere At the sarnfarcuis! (1940) summary of the fekd, same time, this sensitvily ee the clectro- aifge number of traditional phenomena had dermal response an advantage when it comes Fear demonstrated with the electrodermal to direct study of con tte variables. Pesonse, ‘To mestion a fev, they Snckuded ‘The present material 9 examination of rere ME delay. and sabibition, com- the role the electrodermal respons: has played po vipleon of trace and delay paradigms, stimu in the study of cognitive factor: condition Mis generalization, spontaneous recovery, paring. 1k extends pon earlier diseussion tus eeneralzaent effects, compound stimulus (Grings, 1965), An arbitrary, siecion and patterning, and semantic generalization Classification of researches is made as a basis ‘Murine’ the. same_ period, there was an for examination of @ few central issue. ineroming concern for the fact that at least Where a choice of research paradigms is re some of the observed results reflected phe- the paired-stimulation arrangement of some of the Tike verbal expectancy Tear- classical conditioning is given prefereves ar (Cook & Harris, 1937) or preparatory paradigms of avoidance oF sith Yearning rie Ajcive) sets for’ receipt of stimulation instrumental reward fearing ‘and operant | (Stewrer, 1938) than phenomena of “true conditioning, The resicions not made refering,” As efforts were made to tepli- to suggest a discontinuity avng kinds of cote eccend) upon the earlier findings, learning situations, but rather (© Ett simplic cae ean ectrodermal conditioning ity of explanation for a limited ralge of ‘earn Temselves in the middle of a number phenomena. Tt is also true that ‘he classical ance 7 : | | , i 1 ‘Adapted from a research lecture presented to the conditioning paradizm has been the mot eee a er eeniy of Landen, Widely researched stimulation arrangement Insta ot Tobie the author was United with the electrodermal response States National Intute of Mental Health Specal State Neonat goncls Ced research DY. BACKGROUND OR CONSIDERATION OF Ne vauhor was supported by National Institue of Se ETERMINERS OF ‘Mental Health Grant MEL 3916 Comrie Dee eal pat requests should be sent to William W- Conrrronixc Gaim Deparment of Pryeholagy, University of frst clear indications of cognitive rings Depart rcty Pack Lon AMS 7 first clear_indi af cognit California 90007 earning of autonomic responses were reported Sees eee 200 f Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)AL CONDITIONING £ cognitive determina mms. Past ieute have simulas. contingencies, ent “level” Current perceptual significance ie simulas events, Th Ca sensitive indicator ompany processes de vectation, preparation, methodological issues involving the electrodermal response is 30 shifts of attention and the mo- iges in arousal which accompany agoition that it is impossible to qiitive factors completely. from observational situations, At the his sensitivity gives the electro- ase an advantage when it comes iy of cognitive variables, it material is an examination of lectrodermal response has played of cognitive factors in condition rds upon an earlier discussion 5). An arbitrary selection and of researches is made as a basis tion of a few central issues. ice of research, paradigms is re aired-stimulation arrangement of tioning is given preference aver {avoidance or escape learning, reward learning, and operant mms are not matte among kinds of ations, but rather to gain simplic- nation for a limited range of It is also true that the classical paradigm has been the most rched stimulation arrangement troclermal response, EXD FOR CONSIDERATION OF srriv, DETERMINERS OF Conprriontxc clear indications of cognitive stonomic responses were reported 30 years ago. Cook and Hattis (1937) fpanipulated the electrodermal response to a “neutral” stimulus by instructing subjects = ghat the stimulus would be followed by a - shock. They labeled the phenomenon “verbal | onditioning” involving “an association be | een two verbalizatons: for example, the [)rvaliation light” and. the verbalication | teeceive a shock’ [p, 209].” They asserted | forther that “conditioning ofthe galvanic skin | response in the human adult difers from the | eastomary conditioning procedure {p. 209].” | These early observations were put aside by O aaay workers and electrodermal condition HUE oottnved fo be carried out assuming that F gubjects could be kept from making. verbal | gesociations by giving them instructions in- | fended to mislead them about the purpose of | anexperiment, The results of such verbal fac- | ors were considered to be artifacts and not ___ really conditioning (eg., Mowrer, 1938), One | potable exception to this arose {rom an inter- E ext in practical questions of extinguishing - ondesirable conditioned autonomic responses | where conventional extinction — procedures “rere compared to what might be. termed H Ricinction plus knovledge” ‘eg. Haceodh, = 1933) Eanty Srvptes oF Coowutive Factors Im the previously cited study, Haggard | 1943) investigated a variety of cognitive | Variables affecting skin resistance phenomena | ina situation associating shock with a verbal | stimulus, For some subjects the shock was | administered by the experimenter; for others “iL was self-administered. Groups were later “divided on whether they were aware of the word-shock relation, Of three types of ther- apy conditions compared after conditioning, wolved permitting the subject w ask 4qestions, where “an invariable question was ‘whether they would be shocked again” to “which the answer “no farther shocks” would be given. The results were quite complicated because of the wide variety of variables in “volved, but several conclusions were evident One was that cognitive variables have un | important effect on general reactivity. (moti- Nation, arousal) variables and that the in fluence of cognition upon extinction, while e COGNITION ANP RLECTRODERMAI CONDITIONING resent, depend pon other va ements). This difference between associative and motivational effects of instructions during extinction of the electrodermal response is characteristic of later stuslies, Silverman (1960) observed short (.5-second) and long (G-second) interstimulus-interval condition: ing groups and a pseudoconditioning control group when half of each group was extine guished with “no more shock” instructions, Knowledge from instructions affected both the S-seoond and the pseudoconditioning group performance( produced a decrement) whereas the 6-second group was not affected, The re- sult_was interpreted as relecting anxiety produced by the longer interval Wickens, Allen, and Hill (1963) compared extinction with and without such “no more shock” instructions with two levels of un- conditioned stimulus (UCS) intensity. The ‘two control groups (instructed and non instructed) varied in response magnitude showing that one effect of instructions was to lower drive, Instructions speeded extinc- tions but did not produce it immediately ‘There was no clear effect of shock intensity In a related study, Grings and Lockhart (1963) found a performance decrement at- tributable to instructions but no difference due to UCS imensity. The absence of an unpaired group made it impossible to separate motivational and associative effects of the knowledge about stimulus relations, Because many investigators use extinction ‘measures as indices of conditioning acqui sition, the role of instructions upon extinc tion can be evaluated in a number of studies of related issues, like those of awareness and levels of learning, to be noted later (ex. Bridger & Mandel, 1965; Fuhrer & Baer, 1969; Wilson, 1968). Task Ser ‘Traditionally one of the most frequent texpretations of cognitive influences in conditioning has been in terms of facilitating or inhibiting effects performance through the subject’s set toward his. task For eyeblink-conditioning situations these results were extensively discussed (eg., Hilgard & Humphreys, 1938; Norris & Grant, Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)HSs$loce aces Saba eae . en 202 1048), ‘The general results have been clear evidence of inhibition and facilitation by instructional variables. ‘Two recent articles reporting on the electrodermal response illustrate this type of concern, Hill (1967) discussed conditioning ‘with her subjects, then told half of them that the intelligent thing is to become condi- tioned,” while telling the other half that “the intelligent thing is to not become condi- tioned,” ‘The data revealed differential re- sponding in accordance with instruction, the favorable group responding at a consistently higher level than the antiinstruction group ‘The author viewed the instruction effect as predominately motivational. Dawson and Reardon (1969) repeated Hill's instructions and added a control group and a neutral instruction group, Both the inhibitory and facilitory group surpassed the contro! ‘group, but neither differed significantly from fa neutral-instruction-conditioning group, al- though the facilitation group performed sig. nificantly better than the inhibitory group. They also found differential unconditioned response (UCR) habituation in the two con- ditions (inbibiton and facilitation). A later study (Harvey & Wickens, 1971) suggested the possibility that the superior performance ‘of the “pro” group may be due to a non- associative (drive) variable AWARENESS A frequently researched question during the past two decades concerns the concept of awareness and the role it plays, possibly as fa necessary condition to autonomic learning. Put in fis strongest form this argument asserts that all autonomic conditioning is verbal expectancy learning and that aware- ness of conditioned stimulus (CS) UCS relations is necessary for conditioning to occur. Experiments to that end for both electrodermal response and heart rate condi: tioning are typified by those of Chatterjee and Ericksen (1960, 1962), Numerous dif ficulties stand in the way of proving that awareness of CS-UCS relations is necessary for autonomic conditioning to occur. Ht be- comes important to demonstrate an absence of conditioning when there is an absence of awareness, Given the absence of conditioning: WILLIAM W. GRINGS under unaware circumstances, it is always possible that the other necessary conditions for learning are also not present (like per ception of, or attention to, stimuli; and an adequate number of trials for learning to occur), The experiments tend more to prove that cognitive awareness factors are sufficient fand potent than that they are necessary’ ‘Some of the difficulties in this type of re search can be seen from a brief look at a sample of studies. In early investigations, the variable of awareness was defined by sepa- rating subjects into aware and unaware ‘groups on the basis of postexperimental inte views (eg., Diven, 1937; Lacey, Smith, & Green, 1955). There are many weaknesses in this procedure, Potential sources of bias exist during the interview and the locus of the information collection makes it possible that learning could occur first, then produce the awareness, Another approach collects inter- trial reports and attempts to verify the propo- sition that learning occurs on the trial on which awareness occurs, Such a procedure has been used successfully in studies of verbal conditioning (i,e,, nonautonomic) by DeNike (1964), but efforts to use the method with the electrodermal response have not been fully successful (Fubrer & Baer, 1963; Shean, 1968), requiring the investigators 10 base their principal arguments upon post- experimental accuracy in reporting CS-UCS relations, ‘Manipulative definitions of awareness have been of wo main types. One, based on ferences in instructions about stimulus rela. tions, has already been noted above to em hhance performance but to be difficult to evaluate in the opposite direction, that is, in terms of preventing awareness. There is othing in misleading or disguising instruc. tions to guarantee that a subject will not catch on to the stimulus relations, As a result, ‘a second form of manipulation, the use of a masking task, has recently seen emphasis. In an early evaluation of the effect of a masking tack in electrodermal response conditioning Dawson and Grings (1968) administered conditioning stimuli while subjects were 7 taking a paper-ancd-pencil test, Their subjects showed no differential response to reinforced and nonreinforced stimuli until they wert Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)vare circumstances, it is always at the other necessary conditions sare also not present (like per- ‘or attention to, stimuli; and an simber of trials for learning to > experiments tend more to prove ve awareness factors are sufficient than that they are necessary the difficulties in this type of re be seen from a brief look at a tudies, In early investigations, the awareness was defined by sepa- jects into aware and unaware he basis of postexperimental inter. , Diven, 1937; Lacey, Smith, & 5). There are many weaknesses in ure. Potential sources of bias exist interview and the locus of the | collection makes it possible that uld occur first, then produce the ‘Another approach collects intet- s and attempts to verity the propo learning occurs on the trial on reness occurs. Such a procedure ied successfully in studies of verbat g (ie,, nonautonomic) by DeNike it efforts to use the method with ndermal response have not been essful (Fuhrer & Baer, 1965: 8), requiring the investigators. to principal arguments upon post: al accurgey in reporting CS-UCS ative definitions of awareness have @ main types. One, based on instructions about stimulus rela already been noted above to en. formance but t be difficult to the opposite direction, that preventing awareness. ‘There’ is misleading or disguising instruc- uarantee that a subject will not dhe stimulus relations. As a result, orm of manipulation, the use of a sk, has recently seen emphasis, In raluation of the effect of a masking setrodermal response conditioning, nd Grings (1968) aclministered g stimuli while subjects were aper-anid-pencil test, Their subjects differential response to reinforced inforced stimuli until they” were | sted that subpects were distracted by the = fas to a degree that might Keep them from | perceiving the stimu To overcome the weakness just mentioned, ments among members of series of tone ___ iol, and renforcement condtons were introduced by paizing shocks with one of the tones, Further manipulation by instructions | Showed conditioning only when awareness was introduced, In a related study, Fubrer and | Baer (1969) employed differential electro- ___ dermal reponse conning in «group who “had conditioning embedded in a masking |) ick (probability matching) and compart "son group who underwent conventional cond | tioning, Content analysis of postesperinental [interviews showed that 6276 ofthe subjets © in the conventional conditioning group acca- } rately vebalized CS-UCS relations while only 30% of the masking-task geoup did, The | matching-task group showed poorer condi- ‘ng, although in both groups conditioning ‘occurred, The last study demonstrates the cffectiveness of the masking task in manip Jating awareness, but it also suggests. the Timitations of the procedure in eliminating _ awarenes. Lives oF Coxpmriosixe A significant issue in conditioning theory “has heen concerned with the possihility. that Tearning may occur at more than one level, and that perhaps behavior change may be going on at more than one level at the same time. Such a possibility had been suggested by Razran (1955) when he spoke of condi tioning with perception, for example, percep- tion of stimuli, and perception of relations between stimuli Later, Razran (1961) made clear that he felt that primitive forms of conditioning may wweur without awareness and may serve as a basis for some unconscious process. He extended these views (1965, 1971) to what he termed evolutionary levels of learning. ‘The distinctions made here bear resemblance to the difference proposed by Pavlov between first and second signal system conditioning, = sustbseeahis iit iieite cs cecor sas COGNITION AND ELECTRODERMAL CONDITIO: A the first Tevel involving direct sense impres- sions and the second involving symbolic and ‘meaningful stimuli, 1 was implicit in Pavlov's theorizing that learning with the second sisal system may take precedence over, inhibit, or at least interact with learning of the first sigeal system. One of the arguments favoring a separa~ tion of types of learning was made by Bridger and Mandel (1964), ‘They measured the electrodermal response of two groups of subjects, Both groups wore electrodes for receiving an electric shock and both were told that a shock would be delivered after a par- ticular signal stimulus. Then, even though one group was given the shock and the other had only the threat of shock, both groups save electrodermal responses to the signal stimulus that were greater than those given (o the control stimulus. ‘This was viewed as evidence for conditioning. Then both groups wore told that there would be no more shocks and another series of signal trails was ad- ministered, ‘The fact that the threat. group extinguished and the shocked group did not was taken as evidence that different types of learning had occurred—one due to verbal factors only and the other due to actual experience with shock. Extending upon this work and again using lectrodermal response, Bridger and Mandel (1965) reported a study in which instructions to the effect that no more shock would occur (accompanied by removal of the shock elee- trodes) led to the abolition of a partial re- {nforcement extinction effect as compared to the retention of the effect in a noninformed roup. The presence of a conditioned electro dermal response during extinction in the ine formed group combined with the abolition of the partial reinforcement effect was inter- preted to indicate a two-component condi tioned response characterized as a simple conditioned response and a mediated condi- ioned response, In a more recent study by Mandel and Bridger (1967), six groups of subjects were studied, two with a interval, two with a t-second interstimulus interval, and two with a backward inter stimulus interval, AM groups were informed that the experiment contained three parts: Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)4 obs ‘ | i ' / ' i Ht / 208 (a) a period when responses to a light alone would be recorded (preconditioning trials to °S);_ (B) a period when the light would be sssociated with electric shock; and finaly, (@) a period during which responses to the light alone would again be recorded. All sub- jects were informed of the nature of the stimulus relations. ‘Then, at the beginning of the third, or extinction, period one of the two groups in each of the interstimulus inter- val categories was interrupted by the experi renter removing the UCS electrodes, wiping the subjects skin clear of electrode jelly and ing him that no further shock would be given, This treatment of the informed sub- jects, as they were called, was contrasted with that ‘of the other group in each condition where the experiment continued without interruption, A postexperimental conducted to eliminate those subjects in the informed group who did not believe the extinction instruction ‘The important extinction results reported were that among the two forward inter~ stimulus interval groups, the S-second group Aemonstrated a larger diferential response uring extinction under the noninformed con dition whereas the second groups hada larger differential response under the in. formed condition, ‘The backward-conditioned response did not demonstrate resistance to extinction under either condition. It was con- cluded that both forward interstimulus inter- val groups demonstrated differential extine- tion responses under the informed condition which were contrary to their cognitive exe pectancies. This alleged maintenance of a differential response contrary to a. cognitive expectaney was “considered be evidence for a level of GSR conditioning analogous to Mowrer's (1938) concept of true learning [Mandell & Bridger, 1967, p. 42]. One of the dangers in drawing the above conclusion from the procedure used is simi lar to the dlificulty encountered in trying to prove that true conditioning does not occur in the absence of awareness, In the latter (awareness) studies, inferences were made from a lack of evidence for conditioning, ant it is argued that the other necessary condi- tions for true learning to occur have been present, Tn the Mandel and Bridger case, WILLIAM W. GRINGS inferences were made from a lack of evidence for extinction, and it becomes necessary to assume that the subject does not have cogni- tive expectation. With human subjects this form of assumption is dificult to substan ate, Tn the study report experimenters may be asking their subjects to report that the experimenter told them a falsehood. That is, they might have really expected a shock ut have answered according to the demand characteristics of the situation Tt should also be pointed out that studies in which instruction variation is presumed to bbe the primary independent variable are often, subject to inadvertent confounding of other types. An example in the present instance might be disinhibition (or dishabituation). It will be noted that the informed groups were interrupted for a period of time whereas the uninformed subjects had no such interruption. Disinhibition or changes in attitude toward the experiment might readily occur due to interruption. ‘The important question, however, remains whether this form of experimental demonstra: tion indicates the existence of two types of learning, one based on cognitive expectancies and the other a noncognitive conditioning. Tt {is concluded here that the evidence at hand is equivocal. It can be explained as resulting entirely from learning, developed through cognitive expectations, which is modified to varying degrees during extinction perform: ance (rather than involving cognitive versus noncognitive processes). The data do argue strongly, however, that cognitive variables fare important in determining extinction performance. Wilson (1968) suggest the “no more shock” extinction for evaluating the relative contributions of simple and cognitive learning. Using a di crimination paradigm and a I-second inter stimulus interval, he instructed the subjects prior to acquisition and prior to extinction, ‘At the beginning of extinction he told them that a. discrimination reversal would occur (ie, CS— would now be shocked and C5+ would not be shocked), He then aciministered stimuli without shock and found “a sudden reversal of the differential conditioning, GSRs of greater magnitude being evoked by Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code) .re made from a lack of evidence a, and it becomes necessary to the subject does not have cogni- tion, With human subjects this imption is difficult to substanti- tuly reported, the experimenters ng their subjects to report, that nier told them a falsehood. ‘That at have really expected a shock swered according to the demand s of the situation, also be pointed out that studies iruction variation is presumed to independent variable are often radvertent confounding of other sample in the present instance inhibition (or dishabituation). Tt 1 that the informed groups were or a perlod of time whereas the uubjects had no such interruption. ‘or changes in attitude toward ant might readily occur due to stant question, however, remains form of experimental demonstra s the existence of two types of - based on cognitive expectancies +r a noncognitive conditioning. Tt here that the evidence at hand is t can be explained as resulting m learning, developed through pectations, which is modified to rees during extinction periorm- than involving cognitive versus processes). The data do argue wvover, that cognitive variables ant in determining extinction 968) suggested an alternative to re shock” extinction instructions ng the relative contributions of cognitive learning. Using a di paradigm and a I-second inter- ewval, he instructed the subjects wuisiton and prior to extinction, aning of extinction he told them ination reversal would occur would now he shocked and CS+ e shocked). He then administered out shock and found “a sudden the differential conditioning, eater magnitude being evoked by a COGNITION AND BLECTRODERMLAL CONDITIONING 208 FCS— |p. 491]. He concluded that the “study finds no evidence to support the con- tention that some part of a conditioned auto- nomic response is ‘simple’ in the sense that it is not mediated by S's perception of stim | lus contingencies [p. 493].” Subsequent study E of the reversal procedure (Grings, 1973) has shown a clear dominance of cognitive vari- ables for both tong and short interstimulus intervals, and when reversal learning groups (negative transfer experience) are compared to groups whose previous training was pseudo conditioning (or nontransier experience) Another interpretation about levels was made by Fubrer and Baer (1969) in the previously discussed study using a masking task. ‘They argued that cognitive factors | manifest themselves differently in the various components (topography) of the electro dermal response, They found that in their masking-task group both aware and unaware subjects show significant discrimination of st response (responses occurring just after the CS) but not significant second responses (occurring just before the onset of UCS). They conclude that they have demonstrated unaware conditioning Inpmnect Appxoacues To “AWARENESS” VaRiaRis Most of the evidence considered thus far has relied upon manipulations of environmen- tal conditions which are presumed to inlu- fence the subject's cognitive awareness or | perception of the experimental situation, Such studies have been mast numerous. in electrodermal response conditioning, There is, however, considerable information from _ other types of studies--among them observa- tions of special populations of verbal-concep. tually handi serene ts, studies using ninistered interocep- “tively, and research using the electrodermal “response as an index of expectation ot “alertness, In carly efforts to evaluate the role of _ verbal factors in electrodermal response con- ditioning the writer used two special popula tions of subjects who were deficient in verbal “capabilities. One of these was composed of totally deat preschool-age children who, be- cause of their deafness, were not equipped with verbal communication skills and who, because of age and deafness, would be ex- pected to be very unsophisticated about con- dlitioning (Grings, Lowell, & Honnard, 1961), ‘These children showed conditioning as rapidly and reliably as college-age normal subjects, The second investigation was made of ado- Tescents confined in a state hospital for the mentally deficient, Two samples were chosen, One had an average IQ of 63 and possessed minimum verbal skills for ordinary communi cation, The other had a mean TQ of 34 and was almost completely nonverbal. Tt was anticipated that a difference in rate of acqui sition of an autonomic conditioned nation would result from a. diff verbal ability. This did not oceur, for both, groups conditioned rapidly andr (Grings, Lockhart, & Dameron, 1962) lar results have been reported by Baumeister, Beedle, & Urquhart (1964), whereas Lobb and Nugent (1966) and Lobb (1968) report, ‘an interaction of intelligence and inte stimulus interval. Still another avenue into the domain of cognitive-autonomic relations exists through the distinction between interoceptive and exteroceptive conditioning. Most human studies employ as conditioned stirauli extero ceptive stimuli like lights and tones, Few have used stimuli delivered interoceptively as has been done extensively with Iower animals (eg., Bykov, 1957). Stimuli to the interior of the body have a unique property i of awareness learning, for such stimuli are typically reported as only vague and diffs in conscious experience. Une (1970) conducted a study comparing exteroceptive and interoceptive conditioning of the electrodermal response and made ex- tensive observations of the role of perception and awareness. The interoceptive stimuli were different temperatures of a water-filled bal- loon, swallowed by the subjects and located midway in the esophagus, Exteroceptive CSs were tones of different frequencies, and the UCS was an electric shock. Differential conditioning was obtained to both intero: ceptive and exteroceptive stimuli, Analysis of subgroups in terms of their awareness of stimulus (CS) differences or of CS-UCS rela tions showed that unawareness of interoceptive Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)a ee es see sacteeeenes Son Geo eee: 206 stimuli or their reinforcement contingencies tended to eliminate the first response (the conditioned response occurring in the delay interval) but did not climinate conditioning of the UCS omission response (the condi tioned response occurring on trials where the UCS is omitted), Only one response was mea sured in the delay period so that a direct ‘comparison cannot be made with the conclu- sins of Fuhrer and Baer (1969) about awareness and response topography’ ‘There are other forms of research para- ddigms which have much in common with pre viously discussed manipulations of cognitive awareness, but which are typically not con- sidered in connection with the above issues, possibly because the subject is assumed to be aware. Some of these will be noted briefly. ‘One is the motor avoidance task in wl a C$ serves as the signal for response. It is possible to observe conditioned anticipatory ‘electrodermal responses if the time between CS and receipt (or nonoccurrence) of noxious stimulus is sufficiently long. Conclusions ‘about awareness can be made from the cor- reetness of the avoidance response. AS an example of this type, Grings and Lockhart (1966) had subjects operate a four-pasition switch which was signalled by four visual stimuli: one always followed by shock, one never shocked, and two associated with switch positions which avoided the shock. Successive subgroupings exhibited progres sively better avoidance learning with in- ‘creased awareness instruction and showed significant. decreases in magnitude of anti patory electrodermal responses at the point of learning the avoidance contingency related study (Colgan, 1970) produced similar results by making the receipt of shock predictable to the subject by instruct- ing him about stimulation changes. With three distinctive stimuli, each was followed equally often by. shock during an initial period of trials, Then half of the subjects structed that shock would follow on! cone stimulus and the other half were in- structed that they would have a second series like the first. The preshock electrodermal re- sponse for the instructed groups stayed at a high magnitude for the eue still followed by shock and dropped sharply for the other two WILLIAM W. GRINGS Signals. For the other subgroup no between stimulus differences occurred, there is distinctive wal for action to occur after a delay will provide electrodermal responses similar tw those in more conventional delay condition- ig. ‘Two outstanding examples are the method of Ivanov-Smolensky where the signat to execute an instructed command takes the place of the conventional UCS (an example with electrodermal response conditioning would be that of Skorunskaia, 1958); and the reaction time task where the warning signal for the reaction time task can be made to have the properties of a discriminative CS (eg, Baer & Fubrer, 1969; Martin, 1965). oe Related Theoretical Issues "The discussion to the present point permits the conclusion that in electrodermal con ‘oning situations many cognitive variables are of theoretical importance. The variables which have been identified stress the impor tance of conscious awareness and of induced sets upon performance. t that verbal expectancies develop in paired stimulation (conditioning) situations, and there is. strony response conditioning these verbal awarenesses ing of electrodermal behavior occurs in the absence of awareness is an open question. OF major importance, is the question of just hhow the cognitive factors operate in deter- mining autonomic behavior change. At the present time there is no compre hensive miniature theory to account for cox: nitive learning of autonomic behavior. There are, however, strong Tinks to points of view emphasize sign-significate learning. (es Tolman, 1932) and sequence-learning inter pretations of conditioning (exe, Grings, 1963: Woolworth, 1947) and with leamed orient- ing and alerting behavior to stimuli (e.. Sokolov, 1963) What is central “pees Cron reer changes accompany ‘Whether any learn all of these points of ‘view is that the conditioned stimulus serves _ asa signal which informs the subject of the appearance of the second stimulus (the UCS), Some discussions about the nature of | electrodermal conditioning (e., Grins 1960, 1969; Grings & Sukoneck, 1971) en: Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)he other subgroup no between- rences occurred. on in which there is a distinctive jon to occur after a delay will rodermal responses similar to e conventional delay condition: utstanding examples are the qnov-Smolensky where the signal | instructed command takes the conventional UCS (an example dermal response conditioning. fof Skorunskaia, 1958); and the “task where the warning sigeal jon time task can be made to sperties of a discriminative CS < Fuhrer, 1969; Martin, 1965) retical Ines son tothe present point permits mr that in cetroerma cond tions, many. eogiive variables aca importance, ‘The variables been denied ste the impor Sus awareness and of verbal yon, performance, Te fs de spectacles. develop in patel (conftoning) stations, and sng evidence thatletroleral maoning changes accompa fareneses Whether any leat etermal beavis occas ithe Graves an open qui tance, the guertion of Jus Inte facors operate fn deter monic behavior change. roent tine there i m0 COO tne ther to acne fc ng of autonomic bekavog. Tete Ptong links to points of lew sum sgnicateleatng (ei 32) and soquencelearring inter Fcnationing (ed Geng, 1983 tbat) and with learned vient erting bebavior to stimuli (e.g 63). central to all of these points of t the conditioned stimulus serves which informs the subject of the ‘of the second stimulus (the e discussions about the nature of (ea, Grin rings & Sukoneck, 1971) em = phasize concepts of perception, set, and ex: _— pectancy based on temporal contingencies operating inthe individual's environment. | "The autonomic responses are seen as arousal correlates to the preparation and expectation proces. This suggests the otganization of Concepts underlining such leering in terms of perceptual variables of at least two main {ypes: perception of stimuli and perception of relations oF contingencies, Paired stimulation experiences are assumed to change pereeptions of the stimu involved "A signal stimulus may take on the proper “Ges of the stimulas which it signals, Vesbal- faable properties of conditioned stimulus "appear to show alteration due to. association “with the UCS, This may occur with non- symbolic as well as with symbolic stimuli, As “an example of such change in nonsymbol uli, one might note the work of Beck and Brooks (1967) and Sutterer and Beck (1910) who found semantic diferential rating | changes for neutral stimuli preceding. and following a noxious stimults. Generally speaking, the signal which is antecedent. to aan unpleasant event changes its affective quality toward unpleasantness, whereas the opposite is true for a stimulus following. such an event (eq, the change is toward pleasantness) Shift in meaning of a symbole stimulus implying a contingent event can be seen to change its arousal properties differently. as a result of general exposure to the event, oF aravled experiences with the event. (Grings & “Zeines, 1965). This type of phenomenon can he demonstrated to vocur with symbolic stimuli not themselves reinforced but in- cluded ina group of reinforced stimuli (Grings, Carlin, & Appley, 1962). In other cases the intrinsic meaning of symbolic stim- lf may determine the subject's perception of "the stimulus sequence (eg, Grant, 1972) “There is also support for the assumption _ that the perceptual properties of a noxious [simul (eg, the UCS) will change as a “result. of paired stimulation with a signal stimulus. For example, it has been generally 7 that an electrodermal response to “noxious stimulus, like an electric. shock, is : Jess in ‘magnitade when that wlus is pre- ‘signal than it is when itis pre- srr pcencremmrccererimertn sas COGNITION AND ELECTRODERMAL CONDITIONING 207 sented alone, ‘the phenomenon, termed UCR diminution (eg., Kimmel, 1966) is compli- cated by difculties arising from peripheral response interference (eg, Grings & Schell, 1969) and orienting behavior (Badia & Defran, 1970), In at least one study the rated intensity of the UCS was found to change in the same direction as the autonomic response (ie, as the electrodermal response became les, the stimulus was rated less intense) (Schell & Grings, 1971). Other studies show dlfferent results (e4., Kimmel, 1967; Furedy & Doob, 1971), One basis for predicting enhancement rather than diminution has been suggested in the situation where signal stimuli are followed by a UCS different from that with which they had previously been associated (Grings, 1960), ‘A theory for explaining both directions of response change (diminution and enhance- ment) in terms of perceptual changes has been proposed by Lyikken (1962, 1968). His central concept is termed “preception”” and involves a hypothetical mechanism for amp fying or attenuating the subjective intensity of predictable stimuli. Other evidence for the effect of stimulus paitinys upon perception of the signaled stimulus comes from studies of preference for signaled and unsignaled shock (eg,, Badia, MeBane, Suter, & Li 1966); and judgments of stimulus intensity under’ different circumstances of warning (eg., Epstein & Clark, 1970). A central focus of research on awareness variables was upon perception of relations among, stimuli or of contingencies, One im: mediate question concerns the manner in which the relation is learned, that is, how the subject becomes aware of a contingency. Most research to date falls into one of two roups. In one, learaing is by some self discovery method and in the other learning is by some form of verbal guidance, Common observation indicates that knowledge of rela- tions or contingencies alone may be a weak modifier of hehavior. Additional research concepts are needed which relate to the strength of belief about the knowledge of the contingency. One way such a variable ‘can be studied is through reports of certainty by the subject, Other ways nay be developed Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)is f je CD i a coset 208 from considerations of the properties of the contingency relations (One important feature of the relation in the case of simple sequence association is the information that is contained in the sequence. ‘Two major kinds of information occur, One concems the qualities or characteristics of the event to follow and the other arises from the certainty elements of the relation, In th last category at least three forms of certainty are available for research: event certainty, time certainty, and quality certainty. Exam ples of event certainty can be developed through manipulation of the proportion of times that the second event follows the first (a concept somewhat analogous to percentage of reinforcement, except that it might include pattern as well a5 rate of oocurrence of pairs, fete). Time certainty can be defined by the difference between a constant interstimulus interval and a variable interstimulus interval, for the arrival of the unpleasant signaled event will be more uncertain with variable {interstimulus interval than with constant interstimulus interval. Quality uncertainty relates to the extent to which the qualitative properties of the second stimulus are predict- able, and is most simply defined by contrast- ing constant intensity and variable intensity ‘seconcl stimuli, Recent experiments to evalu- fate these informational variables in the present contest manipulated event certainty (eg, Epstein & Roupenian, 1970; Grings & Sukoneck, 1971), time certainty (e.g., Grings & Schell, 1971), and quality certainty (ex, Fpsiein & Clarke, 1970; Ohman, 1971). Tn. brief, it is concluded that cognitive determination of autonomic conditioning re sults from the central fact that the CS con- tains information properties which can be conceptualized in terms of Knowledge of stimulus relations and knowledge of stimulus properties, Experimental manipulation can be achieved through concepts of certainty, subjective probability, and information trans mmission, ‘There is an implied role played by |. In aversive situations this is (modulating) the WILLLAM W. GRINGS tioned stimulus is dependent to a degree upon the information provided by the signa. (CES Bao, B, McBaxr, By Sumen, S, & Lew, P Preiesce behavior in’ an immediate versus vari ably delayed shock situation with and without 3 tvarning signal. Journal of Experimental Psychol 263, 1965, 72, 817-852, Banik, Py & Drie, RH. Orienting responses and GSR conditioning” A dilemma, Psychological Re view, 1970, 77, 171-180. ann, P. Ey & Fenn, M, J. Cognitive factors in ierential conditioning of the GSR: Use of a faction tine task as the UCS with normals and Echlzophrenic, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 544-582. Dacaresres, A. Ay Buuotr, R, & Urqwntaer, 0. (GSR condoning normals and retnrdats Simericom Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1964, 69, ankio, Bex, R, C, & Brooxs, C. f, Human judsments of “mull aocated with shock onset and termina lion. Psychononie Science, 1963, 8, 327-328 Urner, W. Hy & MOevoas, 1. J. A’ comparison ot ‘GSR fear responses produced by threat and ee trie shork, Journal of Psychiatric Rescarch, 196%, 2, 31-40. Buwoors, W. H, & Maxoety 1. J. Abolition of the "PRE by inctnictions in GSR conditioning. Journal of Experimental Prychalogy, 1965, 69, 476-482, Byson, KM. The cerebral cortex and the internal forgans, (Trans, by WH. Gantt) New York Chemical Publishing Co. 1957 cyarieerer, B. B., & Exuxses, C. W. Condition hind eenerlization of GSR ss a fanction of aware fess, Journal of Abxormel and Socal Psychology, 1940, 60, 395-10 cuarmages, BB, & Engses, C. W. Cosnitive factors in heuet rate conditioning. Journal of Ex perimental Pasehotons, 1962, 64, 272-279, Couey, D. M, Effects of instructions upon the skin ‘esltance response, Zourval of Experimental Py ‘chology, 1970, 86, 108-112. Coox, $. W,, & Hates, R. E. The verbal condition Tne of the galvanic skin rellex. Journal of Esper terial Prychology, 1937, 21, 202-210. Danwoor, ME, Cognition and conditioning: Eiets ‘of masking the CS-UCS contingency on human joing, Jourval of Bxperimer fal Poychology, 1970, 88, $89-%96. Dawson, M. Ey & Ganees, W. W. Comparison of ‘Sueeal eondtioning and relational learning. Jou? hl of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 76, 227-231 {€ Reamnos, P. Bifects of iciitors ‘ind inhibitory sets on GSR. conditioning. ant fxtinction, Journal of sperimental Poychotony 106, 82, 402-406 a VeNter, LD, The temporal rationship betwee cavarenes: an performance in verbal conditionin Journal of Riperimental, Psychology, 1961, 68 S809, arousal characteristics of the strong (u- ed) stimulus, Finally, there is an implication that the response to the uncondi- = cet sis pone fe Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)us is dependent to a degree upon on provided by the signal REPBRENCES B, Sum, S, & Leva, P, Jaan immediite vers va ‘hock situation with and without a al, Journal of Experimental Psychol 1 87-482 bens, R, 1, Ovienting responses and suing” A’ dilemma. Peychotogica Ke 72, 1-180, Fores, M. J. Coxnit onditioning of the task as the UCS with normals and s. Journal of Abnormal Prycholors, (2, \ Ay Benois, Ry & Unquaanr, D. toning in normals and retardates, inal of Mental DefScincy, 1964, 69, Baooxs, C. 1. Human judgments of ited ith shock onset and termina vomic Science, 1967, 8, 327-828 1 Manors, 1. J. A comparison of sponses produced by threat and elec Gurnal af Peychlatrie Research, 1968, Ly & Mawvia, T. J. Abolition of the ructons in GSR ‘conditioning, Fournal Hal Psychology, 1963, 9, 315-48 ‘The cerebral cores and the interal Wo H. Gantt) New York Be farce, C. W. Conlonine aon st GSK a's fancion of see: 1p dbnarnat and Soil Pecks, so ry & Bans, CW. Conatve Se te contig. Journal of Bs Syhatgy, ok, 4, 20-27 Ec of itrctons pon the skin nse Jouraal of Beprincntal is oo, soci Cissy RE, The verbal onion. an sin rete, Joust of spe logs, 08,2 Cogan sc ‘ie COUCS lagen, haan Pandtinng. Jour! 0} Expr. ey 0, 65, 89-98 Gin, WW. Compan of Boning and lations emi Jour metal Pretty 98676 228, rn ean fe Elects of far vst om CSR. coast apd Taran sprint. Prot se, the tena hip wt psormanin ver eon ispeinenl’Porang 1h, 8, | Pins, K. Certain determinants i the conditioning Df amity reactions, Journal of Psychology, 1037, 5, 291-408, raters, S, & Cramp, $. Heart rate and skin eon -“Guctance” daring experimentally induced anaets Elects of anticipated intensity of noslous imal tion and “esperiene. Jounal of "Experimental = _Peychotory, 1970, 84, 105-112 Ensnis, Sy & Rocersiax, A. Heart rate and akin eondctavce duving experimentally induced any. ety The efeet of uncertainty about receiving & noxious stimulus, Jounal of Personllty end Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 20-28 Powua, MJ, & Boss, P. B, Differential classical ‘onditioning:”Verbalzation of stimulus contingen- es, Sconce, 1965, 150, 1479-1481 -Fummrs, MJ, & Bars, P. E. Cognitive process in ferential GSR conditioning: Elects of mask © Ing task. American Journal of Psychology, 1068, 82, 165.180. © Fortoy, J. J, & Dou, ALN, Autonomic responses and verbal eports in further tests of the prepara- | tory-adaptve-response interpretation of reinforce. mint, Journal of Bsperimental Peychologs, 1973, ee © Guar, D. AL Comequences of procesing and a {preliminary model for processing information con- _—_weyed by verbal conditioned stimuli In A, Black | -&W. Prokasy (Eds), Clarcal Conditioning TE New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1972 Gurscs, W. W. Preparatory st variahiss related to “dassial "conditioning of “autonomic responses, __Peycholopical Review, 1960, 67, 248-282 -—Garves, W. W, Classical conditioning, In’ M. Marx (Bal), Theories in contemporary prychotogy, New York! Macmilln, 1965, Gauxes, W. W, Verbal-pereeptual factors in the con: -ditioning’ of “autonomic responses. In W. F. | Prokasy (Ba), Classica conditioning, New York: —_Appleton.Centiey-Crotts, 165, -—Gnuxes, W. W. Anticipatory snd preparatory electio= “dermal behavior in paized stimulation sitzations _Peychophysiology, 1963, 5, $07-811. Guanes, W. The role of conscinusnesy and cognition in autonomic behavior chanue. In F. J. McGuigan ER. Schoonover (és), The paychophysiology of thinking. New York: seademie Press, 1975, in press Gunes, W, Lownts, B., & Howssso, R, GSR con ditoning with presehoal age deaf ehilden, Journal of Comparatice and Physelogeal. Paychology, 2 to61, $4, tase, Gers, W, Loceutinr, R, & Danoeox, L, Condi. “tioning autonomic responses of mehtaliysub- normal “individuals.” Prychologieal Monograph, 1062, 76639, Whole ‘No. 558). = Guscs, W., Canty S, & APPLEY, ML Set, sax. “festion and condtloning. Fournal of Experimental __Paychotogy, 1962, 63, 417-382 fGnines, W, & Locxmans, R. Elects of “anxiety Tessening” instructions ad diferental set develop- reat on the extinction of the GSR. Journal of Experimental Pryckology, 1958, 6, 292-298, COGNITION AND ELECTRODERMAL CONDITIONING 209 Grinos, W, & Lockman, R. Galvanic skin response during avoidance learning. Paychophysiofogy, 1966, 3, 20-84, wos, WW, & Scuect, A.M. Magnitude of electrodermal response toa standard stimuls es & function of intemity and proximity of a prior stimulus, Journal of Comparatice and Physion logical Peychology, 1960, 67, 772. Gnunos, W., & Scum, A, The effects of trace vers ‘ely’ conditioning, IST variability, and instretions fon UCR diminution. Journal of Experimental Plychology, 1971, 90, 136-180, Gnuves, W., & Soxowncx, II, Predstion probability as a’ determiner of anticipatory. and preparatory behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1911, 91, 310-317 Gaines, W, & Zeuwia, A. Autonomic responses to ‘words modited. by sonstzing and conditioning speriences. Jouraat af Psychosomatic Research, 1965, 8, 375-378. Haccaro, E. A. Experimental studies in afiective processes: I. Some elects of copntive structure snd active participation on certain autonome Fractions during and following experimentally in- ‘duced stress. Journal of Esperimental Prschology, 1943, 38, 257284, Haney, B,, & Wickes, D, D, Elect of instruc: tions ‘on “responsiveness tothe CS and to the UCS in GSH conditioning. Journal of xperimen- tal Poychology, 1971, 87, 137-10. How, B. Ry & Hourrinys, L. G. The effect of ‘supporting and antagonistic Voluntary instructions ‘on conditioned discrimination, Journal of Experi ‘mental Psychology, 1988, 22, 291-308. Hasso, E.R, & Mangos, D. G, Conditioning ond learning. Now York: Appleton-Centary-Crofts, m0. Horr, FA. Elects of instructions and subjects need for approval on the conditioned galvanic shin response. Jourual of Rsperimental Paychotogy, 1967, 73, 461-467 Kassatt, E, Judgments of UCS intensity and dime nution of the TCR in elssseal GSR conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 196%, 73, 592-883, Knot, HD. Inhibition of the unconditioned sponse in dassieal conditioning. Psychological Re- ies, 1966, 73, 232-200, Escuy, J. Ty Sater, RL, & Grea, A. Use of com dlioned autonome response in the study of ansi- tty. Peychosomatic Medicine, 1955, 17, 208-217, Loss, H. Trace GSR conditioning with benzedrine in mentally defective and normal adults. American Journal of Mental Dejviency, 1968, 73, 239-248. Lone, H, & Nuouwr, C. M. Interaction between ntlgence Tove) and Intersiimus trace interval fn electrodermal conditioning. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 10, 548 Lygxas, D. T. Preception In the rat: Avtonomic ‘sponse to shock at fonction of Jeng of warn ing interval Science, 1962, 136, 665-666 G Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code)210 Leger, B. T. Neutopsycholors’ and psychophysiot- ‘ey in personality research, In Borgata & Lambert (Ets), Handbook of pereonaity theory and re~ earch! New York: Rand McNally, 1968 [Masbit, TJ) & Barooey, W. HL, Interaction between instruetione and TST in conditioning and extinction Df the GSR Jounal of Bxperimental Psychology, 1067, 74, 36-48 Maris, 1. Discriminatory GSR. Superior, 1968, 1, 217-225, Mownrny 0, HL. Preparatory ast, Piychologiad Re- lee, 1958, 45, 62°91 Nanas, E. By & Gnas, D. A, Eyelid conditioning fs alected by verbally induced inhibitory set and “ounter reinforcement. Americon Journal of Ps ‘ehology, 1948, 61, 37-29, Onscasy A, Interaction between instruction-induced ‘expectancy and strength of unconditioned stimulus Jn’ GSR. conditioning. Journal of Experimental Peychology, 1971, 88, 84-90. Rarsas, G. Conditioning and perception. Psycho- Tiras Revie, 1958, 62, 83-98 Rana G. The observable unconscious and inferable Konstious in covrent Soviet psschopbysilocy nterocepive conditioning, semantic conditioning, and. the orienting telex: Payehological Review, We, 66, 81-147 Razsax, G. Evolutionary peychology: Levels of Yearning and perception snd thinking, In B. Wolman (kd), Stentite pevckology. New York Basie Books, 1965 Ramas, Goi Mind in iourhton Milfin 1971 ice, A.M. & Gumwes, W. W, Judaments of 1 intemity and. diminotion of the unconditioced GSR, Paychophseology, 1971, 8, 427-482 Aetivitas Nervora evolution, Boston: WILLA W. GRINGS Sway, GD, The relationship between ability to ‘erbalite stimulus contingencies and GSR. condi tioning. Journal of Peychosomotic Research 1968, 12, 245-28. suvbouas, R. E, Eliminating 2 conditioned GSR toy the reduction of experimental anxiety. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 89, 122-128 Saowessnata, T, X, Toterition of signal asstems ‘during simultaneous preentaion of dive and verbal. stimuli of oppesitesigniticance, Pe Tournal of Higher Nervous Activity, 1958, 8 3 332, Soxotor, Y. N, Perception and the conditioned reflex. New York: Mcmillan, 1968 Seren, J & Wecx, R. Human response to stimull fscocated with shock opset and. termination Fournal of Experimental Peychology, 1970, 4 188-170, ‘Tounian, E. C, Purposive behavior jn animals and fmon New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1983, Uso, T, The fects of awareness. and successive Tahibition on interoceptive and exteroceptive con- ftioning of the galvanic skin response. Psycho physiology, 1970, 7, 27-3 Wiemtss, D. Dy Anas, C.K, & Tn, B.A. Elects of insiruction on estincion of the condi tinned GSR. Journal of Experimental Paychology. 1965, 66, 255-240. Wasow, G, D. Reversi] of diferent GSR condi. tioning. by instructions, Jouraal of Experimental Peschalogy, 1968, 76, 491-483 Woorworrm, R. 5. Reinforcement of pereption American Journal of Piychology, O47, 60, ug. (Roeeved January 11, 1972) Material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code) ee ae eset . =