Is human Pavlovian conditioning driven by a unitary, propositional system (as claimed by Mitchell, De Houwer, & Lovibond, 2009) or by dual systems; one under conscious control, symbolic in nature, and requiring effort to deploy, and the other utilizing associative processes and automatic in its operation (McLaren, Green, & Mackintosh, 1994)? Past research has suggested that for electrodermal conditioning to occur in humans, conscious awareness of the contingencies is necessary to produce conditioned responding (e.g., Hinchy, Lovibond, & Ter-Horst, 1995), as predicted by single process theories that attribute the conditioned response (CR) to conscious expectancy of the shock. In this article, the authors examined the Perruchet effect (Perruchet, 1985), using an electrodermal paradigm to determine whether there is any role for associative processes in human electrodermal conditioning. The authors attempted to replicate the basic effect, whereby expectancy of an unconditioned stimulus (US) increases over a run of nonreinforced trials while the CR to the conditional stimulus (CS) declines, and the complementary pattern in which expectancy decreases over a run of reinforced trials while the CR to the CS grows in strength. In line with these patterns, the change in skin conductance response (our CR) as a function of US run length was found to follow a linear trend opposite to that of conscious expectancy of shock with respect to US run length. This dissociation supports a dual-processing system account of human Pavlovian conditioning, with conscious, controlled processes governing expectancy (and subject to the gambler's fallacy), whereas automatic, associative processes determine at least some of the strength of the CR to the CS.
(c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved.