Conditioned Emotional Responding (CER) mediated by interference

The results clearly demonstrate that possible adventitious punishment of a lever pressing response in addition to effects of interference of the CER procedure has no discernible quantitative effect on the suppression obtained.

Abstract

Abstract Two alternative explanations of conditioned suppression have been proposed: (1) punishment of an ongoing operant; and (2) interference with an ongoing operant. The first explanation is established by well known operant principles. The proposition that interference alone is capable of producing conditioned suppression is tested by this experiment. One group of monkeys received differentiated classical conditioning trials superimposed on a lever pressing operant; the second group received differentiated classical conditioning and lever press training separately. Cardiovascular variables were recorded as independent measures of “emotional” conditioning. The training criterion for the first group was established by differentiated responses in both cardiovascular and lever press measures. The training criterion for the second group was established by differentiated cardiovascular responses only. After meeting criterion the conditional stimulus (CS) alone was superimposed for the first time on the lever pressing operant. The results clearly demonstrate that possible adventitious punishment of a lever pressing response in addition to effects of interference of the CER procedure has no discernible quantitative effect on the suppression obtained. Conditioned suppression was not evident without differentiated cardiovascular responses. All subjects suppressed on test trials in both groups and demonstrated differential autonomic responding.