Classical conditioning of autonomic fear responses is independent of contingency awareness

Abstract

The role of contingency awareness in classical conditioning experiments using human subjects is currently under debate. This study took a novel approach to manipulating contingency awareness in a differential Pavlovian conditioning paradigm. Complex sine wave gratings were used as visual conditional stimuli (CS). By manipulating the fundamental spatial frequency of the displays, we were able to construct pairs of stimuli that varied in discriminability. One group of subjects was given an "easy" discrimination, and another was exposed to a "difficult" CS+ and CS-. A 3rd group was exposed to a stimulus that was paired with the unconditional stimulus (UCS) 50% of the time and served as a control. Skin conductance response (SCR) and continuous UCS expectancy data were measured concurrently throughout the experiment. Differential UCS expectancy was found only in the easy discrimination group. Differential SCRs were found in the easy discrimination group as well as in the difficult discrimination group, but not in the 50% contingency control. The difficult discrimination group did not exhibit differential UCS expectancy but did show clear differential SCR. These observations support a dual process interpretation of classical conditioning whereby conditioning on an implicit level can occur without explicit knowledge about the contingencies. The role of contingency awareness in classical conditioning experiments using human subjects is currently under debate. This study took a novel approach to manipulating contingency awareness in a differential Pavlovian conditioning paradigm. Complex sine wave gratings were used as visual conditional stimuli (CS). By manipulating the fundamental spatial frequency of the displays, we were able to construct pairs of stimuli that varied in discriminability. One group of subjects was given an "easy" discrimination, and another was exposed to a "difficult" CS+ and CS-. A 3rd group was exposed to a stimulus that was paired with the unconditional stimulus (UCS) 50% of the time and served as a control. Skin conductance response (SCR) and continuous UCS expectancy data were measured concurrently throughout the experiment. Differential UCS expectancy was found only in the easy discrimination group. Differential SCRs were found in the easy discrimination group as well as in the difficult discrimination group, but not in the 50% contingency control. The difficult discrimination group did not exhibit differential UCS expectancy but did show clear differential SCR. These observations support a dual process interpretation of classical conditioning whereby conditioning on an implicit level can occur without explicit knowledge about the contingencies.

Figure 1

Visual stimuli used for each group. The stimuli for one group were easy to discriminate (Easy). For one group, they were difficult to discriminate (Difficult). One group was exposed to only one stimulus, and it was paired with the unconditional stimulus (UCS) on half of the presentations (50%).

Figure 2

(a) Unconditional stimulus (UCS) expectancy data for conditional stimuli (CS) CS+ and CS− trials for each group. The CS+ trials depicted for the 50% group were the trials that were paired with the UCS, whereas the CS− trials were trials in which the UCS was not presented. (b) Skin conductance response for CS+ and CS− trials for each group. Error bars show SEM. Asterisks depict significant differences at p < .05.