Psychology Reader

Probability of Shock in the Presence and Absence of CS in Fear Conditioning

Robert A. Rescorla · 1968 · Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Role
Landmark empirical study · Methodological contribution
Difficulty
Moderate
Full work length
5 pages
Type
Journal article

Access

Psychology Reader links to legitimate sources and does not host article PDFs.

Reading focus

Syllabus: How Does Experience Change Behavior?

Compare cue-present and cue-absent outcome probabilities in the experiments, keeping the suppression measure in view.

Why you’re reading it. Apply the framework to a design in which background events change what a cue predicts.

A question to consider. Two workshop signals each precede ten deliveries. What additional record would let you compare their predictive value?

Why this reading

These experiments make the comparison outside a cue central to understanding what the cue predicts. They show why a history of pairings alone can be misleading.

Before you read

The study measures rats’ suppression of food-maintained lever pressing during a tone. A suppression ratio near zero indicates strong suppression; about one-half indicates little change. This behavioral measure is not a direct report of a subjective feeling.

Read for

  1. Separate shock probability during the tone from shock probability outside it.
  2. Use the groups in Experiment 2 to compare changes in each probability while holding the other fixed.
  3. Follow how the observed behavior supports the contingency argument and where interpretation goes beyond observation.

Consider afterwards

  1. Two groups experience equally many cue–outcome pairings. What difference in their wider experience could make those pairings differently informative?

Editorial context

This is an aversive animal preparation with a specific behavioral outcome. Its design supports an inference about predictive relations under those conditions; extending it to human feelings or complex beliefs requires further evidence.