The present results for 40 Ss suggest that drive reduction, rather than contiguity, is the critical variable in PGR conditioning when a response defined concept of drive reduction, i.e., return of autonomic response to baseline, is employed.
References
1.
MowrerO. H.On the dual nature of learning: a reinterpretation of “conditioning” and “problem solving.”Harv. Educ. Rev., 1947, 17, 102–148.
2.
MowrerO. H.Learning theory and behavior.New York: Wiley, 1960.
3.
MowrerO. H., & SolomonL. N.Contiguity vs drive-reduction in conditioned fear: the proximity and abruptness of drive-reduction. Amer. J. Psychol., 1954, 67, 15–25.
4.
SullivanJ. J.Some factors affecting the conditioning of the galvanic skin response. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State Univer. of Iowa, 1950.
5.
WegnerN., & ZeamanD.Strength of cardiac conditioned responses with varying unconditioned stimulus durations. Psychol. Rev., 1958, 65, 238–241.
6.
ZeamanD., & WegnerN.The role of drive reduction in the classical conditioning of an autonomically mediated response. J. exp. Psychol., 1954, 48, 349–354.
