Instrumental Modification of Autonomic behavior

Grings, William W.; Carlin, Sidney

doi:10.1007/bf03393654

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In that study, shock punished spontaneous increase in skin conductance. Shock also suppressed the normal increase in skin conductance following presentation of a conditioned aversive stimulus (Grings & Carlin, 1966).…”

Section: Negative Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Such responses are popular because they are easy to instrument, and their use maintains continuity with animal studies in the area. Researchers also have recorded pulling plungers (e.g., Ayllon Bennett & Cherek, 1990;Katz, 1973), moving a computer mouse (Crosbie, 1990(Crosbie, , 1993, moving objects with a hand , stuttering (Flanagan, Goldiamond, & Azrin, 1958), muscle twitches (Hefferline & Keenan, 1961), heart rate (Brener, 1966), skin conductance (Grings & Carlin, 1966), and vocalization (Miller, 1968a,b). One of the hallmarks of human operant research is the creativity of experimenters in terms of responses employed.…”

Section: Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subjects avoided shock more effectively than did yoked controls. In the other study (Grings & Carlin, 1966), shock (at an intensity that subjects reported as uncomfortable) was presented via electrodes to subjects' forearms immediately after cessation of a conditioned stimulus (a small red triangle) if skin conductance did not increase during the conditioned stimulus. Skin conductance increased, and subjects avoided most shocks.…”

Section: Negative Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior

Lattal¹,

Perone²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Negative Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Negative Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior

Lattal¹,

Perone²

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a related experiment, Grings and Carlin (1966) reported that GSR magnitude was actually greater in yoked controls than in aYoidance Ss, although the frequency of GSRs was greater in the aYoidance condition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

“…These frequencies were transformed by adding one to each and then taking the square root. This transformation was used by Grings and Carlin (1966) and retained here so the results would be comparable. The average transformed values for adaptation, acquisition, and extinction are shown in Fig.…”

Section: Frequencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance Conditioning Oe Skin Potential Responses

Shnidman

1969

Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avoidance of electric shock was used to manipulate skin potential changes elicited by a simple visual stimulus. Experimental and control Ss were matched on habituation trials and yoked for 40 acquisition and 10 extinction trials. During acquisition the avoidance Ss differentiated between stimulus and non‐stimulus periods more reliably than the controls. During extinction the avoidance group produced significantly more criterion electrodermal responses, with greater magnitude of positive wave components, than the control group. Some of the problems of appropriate control procedures inherent in this design are examined in relation to these results.

show abstract

The effects of warned loss magnitude and timeout duration on human avoidance behavior

Ono

Koshitsuka

Kubo

2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study experimentally investigated the determinants of avoidance behavior when participants are forewarned of aversive outcomes. The effects of 3 variables on avoidance behavior were examined: point‐loss amount (5 levels, from 20 to 100 points), duration of timeout from positive reinforcement (5 levels, 20 to 100 s), and 3 predictive accuracy levels (100%, 50%, and 0%) of warning stimuli. Twelve participants completed 3 sessions, each comprising 25 discrete trials, that differed in predictive accuracy level. Throughout a session, a participant engaged in button press responses that were reinforced by points under a conjunctive fixed‐ratio fixed‐interval schedule. During each trial, a warning stimulus that indicated a loss amount and a timeout duration was presented. If the participant pressed the avoidance button, then the timeout started, otherwise the loss occurred. The trial ended with termination of timeout or an occurrence of the loss. Results showed that avoidance responses increased when the loss amount increased and decreased when the timeout duration increased. The frequency of avoidance responses was lowest when the predictive accuracy of warning stimuli was 0%. These findings demonstrated that this experimental procedure could be useful for investigating human avoidance behavior outside the laboratory.

show abstract

Instrumental Modification of Autonomic behavior

Cited by 20 publications

References 10 publications

Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior

Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior

Avoidance Conditioning Oe Skin Potential Responses

The effects of warned loss magnitude and timeout duration on human avoidance behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About