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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
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 Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State Univer.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.
