ISSN:
1469-8986
Source:
Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005
Topics:
Medicine
,
Psychology
Notes:
Classical conditioning experiments which employ CS-US intervals shorter than the latency of the CR, and which therefore require interspersed CS-alone test trials to assess conditioning, are open to the stimulus-sequence-change-elicited (SSCE) OR argument. The form of the SSCE argument which denies associative status to SCRs elicited by the CS-alone test trials is here termed an “empirical red herring” because: a) the argument cannot be dismissed on purely logical grounds, but requires the assessment of evidence for its examination; b) the argument enjoys empirical plausibility in the minds of the scientific community, as evidenced by published statements in both experimental articles and textbook chapters on autonomic conditioning; c) critical examination of the evidence which apparently supports the argument reveals that while the argument has provided a fascinating byway in the progress of our understanding of SCR conditioning, it is now time to bid farewell to the argument since it lacks any genuine empirical base. In the course of examining this particular argument, both the advantages and disadvantages of such arguments for scientific progress are discussed. Finally, it is emphasized that if one wants to study multiple-response phenomena in SCR conditioning, then a longer CS-US interval is clearly desirable. Our message only is that if the aim is to study SCR conditioning—defined as an increase in responding to a CS relative to some appropriate control condition(s) which is attributable to the contiguity of the CS with the UR to the US—in its most robust form, then the short-interval CS-US arrangement should not be avoided on the basis of the SSCE argument which, on examination, turns out to be an empirical red herring.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb02964.x
Permalink
