Ss were presented with a list of words some of which were followed by shock, others not followed by shock. Ss were aware of the relationship between shock and some of the shocked words (SA words) but were unaware of this relationship for others of the shocked words (SU words). One-half of the Ss recalled the words immediately, the other half after a 30-min. delay. Delayed recall of SU words was inferior to that of SA words and delayed recall of SU words was inferior to that of immediate recall of SU words. The results indicated that shock resulted in a decrease in delayed recall when S was unaware of the CS-UCS contingency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CannicotR. G.UmbergerS. T.An investigation of the psychoanalytic “mechanism” of repression: the retention of verbal material associated with noxious stimulation. Proc. Okla Acad. Sci., 1951, 31, 176–178.
2.
DivenK. E.Certain determinants in the conditioning of anxiety reactions. J. Psychol., 1937, 3, 291–308.
3.
DollardJ.MillerN. E.Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.
4.
EriksenC. W.KuetheJ. L.Avoidance conditioning of verbal behavior without awareness: a paradigm of repression. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 203–209.
5.
FreedmanP. E.FarberI. E.Incubation: effect of awareness on immediate vs. delayed recall of words followed by shock. Paper presented at the meetings of Midwestern Psychological Assn, Chicago, 1961.
6.
GolinS.Incubation effect: role of awareness in an immediate versus delayed test of conditioned emotionality. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 534–539.
7.
LazarusR. S.LongoN.The consistency of psychological defenses against threat. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1953, 48, 495–499.
