Backward and forward blocking in human electrodermal conditioning: blocking requires an assumption of outcome additivity.
Blocking was observed in two human Pavlovian conditioning studies in which colour cues signalled shock. Both forward (Experiment 1) and backward (Experiment 2) blocking was demonstrated, but only when prior verbal and written instructions suggested that if two signals of shock (A+ and B+) were presented together, a double shock would result (AB++). In this case, participants could assume that the outcome magnitude was additive. Participants given non-additivity instructions (A+ and B+ combined would result in the same outcome, a single shock) failed to show blocking. Modifications required for associative models of learning, and normative statistical accounts of causal induction, to account for the impact of additivity instructions on the blocking effect, are discussed. It is argued that the blocking shown in the present experiments resulted from the operation, not of an error-correction learning rule, nor of a simple contingency detection mechanism, but of a more complex inferential process based on propositional knowledge. Consistent with the present data, blocking is a logical outcome of an A+/AB+ design only if participants can assume that outcomes will be additive.
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001245:Association Learning; D003214:Conditioning, Classical / Q000502:physiology*; D003213:Conditioning, Psychological; D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005260:Female; D005712:Galvanic Skin Response / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology; D008297:Male; D008960:Models, Psychological