GSR reactivity, serving as a physiological measure of affective arousal, was instigated and conditioned when Ss observed a performer consistently failing at a motor task. Experimental groups who were told that shock was contingent upon the performer's failure manifested no more vicarious affective reactions than groups observing failure only. Groups observing failure consistently responded with more GSRs than groups observing task success.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BergerS. M.Conditioning through vicarious instigation. Psychol. Rev., 1962, 69, 450–466.
2.
ChatterjeeB. B.EriksenC. W.Conditioning and generalization of GSR as a function of awareness. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 396–403.
3.
DimascioA.BoydR. W.GreenblattM.Physiological correlates of tension and antagonism during psychotherapy; a study of “interpersonal physiology.”Psychosom. Med., 1957, 19, 99–104.
4.
DittesJ. E.Galvanic skin response as a measure of patient's reaction to therapist's permissiveness. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 55, 295–303.
5.
HaggardE. A.Experimental studies in affective processes: II. On the quantification and evaluation of “measured” changes in skin resistance. J. exp. Psychol., 1945, 35, 46–56.
6.
HaggardE. A.On the application of analysis of variance to GSR data: I. The selection of an appropriate measure. II. Some effects of the use of inappropriate measures. J. exp. Psychol., 1949, 39, 378–392.
7.
HanerC. F.WhitneyE. R.Empathic conditioning and its relation to anxiety level. Amer. Psychologist, 1960, 15, 493. (Abstract)
8.
KimmelH. D.Further analysis of GSR conditioning; a reply to Stewart, Stern, Winokur, and Fredman. Psychol. Rev., 1964, 71, 160–166.
9.
LaceyJ. J.Psychophysiological approaches to the evaluation of psychotherapeutic process and outcome. In RubinsteinE. A.ParloffM. B. (Eds.), Research in psychotherapy. Washington, D. C.: Amer. Psychol. Assn, 1959. Pp. 160–208.
10.
LykkenD. T.Properties of electrodes used in electrodermal measurement. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1959, 52, 629–634.
11.
MartinB.LundyR. M.LewinM. H.Verbal and GSR responses in experimental interviews as a function of three degrees of “therapist” communication. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 234–240.
12.
NicholsM. F.KimbleC. A.Effect of instructions upon eyelid conditioning. J. exp. Psychol., 1964, 67, 400–402.
13.
PanekD. M.MartinB.The relationship between GSR and speech disturbances in psychotherapy. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 58, 402–405.
