Eyelid conditioned responses with various levels of anxiety.

Baron, Martin R.; Connor, James P.

doi:10.1037/h0046223

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first finding, where there was no ready signal, is contrary to those of Spence and Weyant (1960) and Baron and Connor (1960). The second finding, where there was a ready signal, is contrary to those of Taylor (1951) and Spence and Taylor (1951).…”

Section: Experiments 7mentioning

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Replication report: Two failures to reproduce effects of anxiety on eyelid conditioning.

King¹,

Kimble²,

Gorman³

et al. 1961

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Experiments 7mentioning

confidence: 70%

“…, Spence and Taylor (1951), Spence and Weyant (1960), and Baron and Connor (1960), among others, have shown that highly anxious 5s develop conditioned eyeblinks at a faster rate and to a higher asymptote than less anxious 5s. The two experiments reported here are practically identical in methodology with those mentioned above.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Replication report: Two failures to reproduce effects of anxiety on eyelid conditioning.

King¹,

Kimble²,

Gorman³

et al. 1961

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Classically conditioned eyeblink conditioning involves the pairing of a conditioned stimulus (CS) tone with an unconditional stimulus (US) corneal air puff which result in learning a conditioned response (CR) eyeblink to the previously neutral CS. There is also a long history indicating that classical conditioning of the eyeblink or eyelid response is affected by anxiety (Hilgard et al, 1951 ; Spence and Taylor, 1951 ; Taylor, 1951 ; Spence and Farber, 1953 ; Baron and Connor, 1960 ; King et al, 1961 ; Beck, 1963 ; Spence et al, 1964 ; Spence and Spence, 1966 ). Consistent with recent findings with BI, these studies revealed enhanced CR acquisition including greater asymptotic performance and a greater number of CRs overall compared to individuals reporting low anxiety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance prone individuals self reporting behavioral inhibition exhibit facilitated acquisition and altered extinction of conditioned eyeblinks with partial reinforcement schedules

Allen

Myers

Servatius

2014

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avoidance in the face of novel situations or uncertainty is a prime feature of behavioral inhibition which has been put forth as a risk factor for the development of anxiety disorders. Recent work has found that behaviorally inhibited (BI) individuals acquire conditioned eyeblinks faster than non-inhibited (NI) individuals in omission and yoked paradigms in which the predictive relationship between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditional stimulus (US) is less than optimal as compared to standard training with CS-US paired trials (Holloway et al., 2014). In the current study, we tested explicitly partial schedules in which half the trials were CS alone or US alone trials in addition to the standard CS-US paired trials. One hundred and forty nine college-aged undergraduates participated in the study. All participants completed the Adult Measure of Behavioral Inhibition (i.e., AMBI) which was used to group participants as BI and NI. Eyeblink conditioning consisted of three US alone trials, 60 acquisition trials, and 20 CS-alone extinction trials presented in one session. Conditioning stimuli were a 500 ms tone CS and a 50-ms air puff US. Behaviorally inhibited individuals receiving 50% partial reinforcement with CS alone or US alone trials produced facilitated acquisition as compared to NI individuals. A partial reinforcement extinction effect (PREE) was evident with CS alone trials in BI but not NI individuals. These current findings indicate that avoidance prone individuals self-reporting behavioral inhibition over-learn an association and are slow to extinguish conditioned responses (CRs) when there is some level of uncertainty between paired trials and CS or US alone presentations.

show abstract

“…With the construction of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety scale (Taylor, 1953), a number of studies (Baron & Connor, 1960;Caldwell & Cromwell, 1959;Spence & Farber, 1953;Spence, Farber, & Taylor, 1954;Spence & Taylor, 1951, 1953Spence & Weyant 1960;Taylor, 1951) have reported a positive relationship between conditionability and score on the MA scale (Manifest Anxiety scale). Similarly, Spence and Beecroft (1954) and Spence and Farber (1954) report greater responsiveness to the reinforced stimulus in the classical discrimination learning situation, as well as some trend (nonsignificant) for better discrimination between reinforced and nonreinforced stimuli, in 5s who scored high, rather than low, on the MA scale.…”

Section: Pennsylvania State Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a blink was not required (Hilgard et al, 1951), the latter condition did not obtain. When a ready signal was not employed, the results are conflicting: Baron and Connor (1960) and Spence and Weyant (1960) report positive results, while Prokasy and Truax (1959) and King (1958) report negative results.…”

Section: Pennsylvania State Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%