Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

1973, Vol. 82, No. 3, 434-443

SIMULTANEOUS AND BACKWARD 1FEAR CONDITIONING

IN THE RAT
C. DONALD HETH2 AND ROBERT A. RESCORLA
Yale University
Simultaneous and backward Pavlovian conditioning paradigms were ex-
amined using a US event which was longer in duration than the CS. Three
experiments paired a 4-sec. electric shock with a 2-sec. tone-light stimulus
under conditions in which the onset of the stimulus occurred .0, .25, 1.0, 2.0,
4.0, or 4.5 sec. after the onset of the shock. Relative to nonpaired control
procedures, response-contingent presentations of the CSs in these paradigms
significantly suppressed a food-rewarded free operant, indicating that these
temporal relationships can produce excitatory associative conditioning. It
was suggested that the distinctions between "forward," "simultaneous,"
and "backward" procedures be modified to include a more molecular analysis
of the US event.

Historically, research in classical condi- relates the informational value of the CS to

tioning has shown that conditioning proce-
dures are effective only when the presenta-
tion of the CS with a US occurs within cer-
tain temporal constraints. A long line of
studies from American laboratories has
usually demonstrated no excitatory associa-
tive conditioning when the CS occurs simul-
taneously with or after the US (cf. Kimble,
1961). Thus, although investigators fre-
quently describe the presentation of the CS
with the US simply as a "pairing," there is
general recognition that, in addition, some
portion of the CS must occur prior to the
US onset. This realization characterizes
many of the conceptual schemes which the-
orists have adopted to describe the Pav-
lovian learning situation.
For example, many theorists conceive of
conditioning as establishing informational
relationships between the CS and US. Res-
corla (1972) has described several exper-
imental operations as manipulations of the
informational value of the CS. One of these
1
This research was supported by National Sci-
ence Foundation Grants GB-6493 and GB-12897.
The authors would like to thank Barbara Steinfeld
for her help in tabulating the data and preparing
the manuscript. Portions of the data from Experi-
ments 1 and 2 were previously reported by Rescorla
(1972). C. Donald Heth is a National Science
Foundation Predoctoral Fellow.
2
Requests for reprints should be addressed to
C. Donald Heth, Department of Psychology, 333
Cedar Street, Yale University, New Haven, Con-
necticut, 06510.
434
its temporal priority within some stimulus
compound (Egger & Miller, 1962, 1963).
Although not limited to such an interpreta-
tion, variations in the temporal relation of
the onset of the CS to the US can be consid-
ered a paradigmatic case of informational
manipulations through temporal priority.
When the onset of the CS is simultaneous
with or follows the onset of the US, then it
no longer serves as a unique predictor of the
US. The CS in these Pavlovian procedures
is made redundant by the simultaneous or
prior occurrence of US onset. The failure to
find excitatory associative conditioning
using these paradigms is therefore consist-
ent with the informational position that a
redundant stimulus acquires little or no as-
sociative strength when paired with the US
(Egger & Miller, 1962).
However, it should be noted that investi-
gations of simultaneous or backward para-
digms have typically employed a rather
narrow range of conditioning procedures.
For instance, in most experiments US
events are short while CSs are of equal or
greater duration (e.g., Bitterman, 1964;
Kamin, 1963). A study by Mowrer and
Aiken (1954) and its replication by Mat-
sumiya (1960) suggest that the failure to
find simultaneous or backward conditioning
may not generalize to a broader range of pro-
cedures. The Mowrer and Aiken study, al-
though not addressed to the issue under dis-
cussion here, used a 10-sec. shock as the US
 FEAR CONDITIONING IN THE RAT 435

and a 3-sec. light as the CS. Their data Method

show that initiating the CS 3 sec. before,
Subjects
simultaneously with, or 7 sec. after the
onset of the US were each sufficient to es- The subjects were 32 male Sprague-Dawley rats
tablish it as a conditioned punisher. Unfor- periment. They95
approximately days old at the start of the ex-
were maintained during the course
tunately, they used as a control condition a of the experiment at 80% of their free-feeding
procedure in which the CS and US were weights.
explicitly unpaired. This procedure has
since been found to endow the CS with con- Apparatus
ditioned inhibitory properties under some The subjects were run in eight experimental
circumstances (e.g., Rescorla & LoLordo, chambers, each housed within a box constructed
1965). This questions the claim that condi- of sound-attenuating material and equipped with
a ventilation fan. During bar-press training and
tioned excitation has been demonstrated in subsequent test sessions, the experimental chambers
the Mowrer and Aiken and the Matsumiya were 22.9 X 20.3 X 20.3 cm. Skinner boxes. The
studies. Nevertheless, the possibility of si- front and rear walls were made of aluminum; the
multaneous conditioning under conditions in side walls and top were Plexiglas. Th'3 floors con-
sisted of stainless-steel rods, 1.9 mm. in diameter
which the CS is temporally embedded within and spaced 19.0 mm. apart. The front wall of each
the US raises serious implications for even contained a recessed food trough located in the
the more traditional conceptions of Pavlo- center, a stainless-steel lever to the left of it, and
vian conditioning. This possibility was ex- a jeweled lamp mounted above the :'ood trough.
amined in the present investigation, using Pavlovian conditioning training was administered
in chambers identical to the Skinner boxes in di-
conditions similar to those of Mowrer and mensions and design with the exception that the
Aiken. Experiments 1 and 2 consider the front wall did not contain a lever, lamp, or food
question of simultaneous conditioning; Ex- trough.
periment 3 extends this analysis to the case Shocks were administered to the floor rods by
means of a high-voltage-high-resistance shock
of backward paradigms. source delivered through a relay-sequence scram-
bler of the type described by Hoffman and Fleshier
EXPERIMENT 1 (1962). The conditioning stimulus (C3) consisted
The conditioned punishment procedure of the onset of a 6'/i-w. light and an 1,800-Hz. tone
delivered simultaneously through a bulb and a
used by Mowrer and Aiken (1954) was loudspeaker mounted on the inside wall of the
adopted in the present investigation, since it sound-attenuation chambers. Programming and
allows the use of relatively short CS events recording equipment were located in an adjacent
and longer US events. The procedure, some- room.
what modified, consisted of three main Procedure
stages: (a) a pretraining stage, in which an
operant bar-pressing response was estab- Magazine and bar-press training. On Day 1 of
the experiment, all subjects were placed in the
lished and maintained by food reward; (b) Skinner boxes and given .045-gm. Noy>;s pellets on
Pavlovian conditioning in the form of pair- a random delivery schedule which averaged one
ing a tone-light compound (CS) with an pellet per minute. In addition, each bir press was
electric shock (US); (c) a testing stage, in rewarded with a pellet. The subjects remained in
which the Pavlovian-trained CS was used the Skinner boxes until they had made 50 responses
and were hand shaped if necessary. On Days 2-5,
as a conditioned punisher of the previously all subjects were placed in the Skinner boxes for
trained operant response. Presumably, the 1 hr. and allowed to bar-press for food on a 1-min.
relative efficacy of the CS in suppressing the variable-interval (VI-1) schedule.
response should provide a measure of the Conditioning. On Days 6 and 7 the subjects were
divided into four groups of eight animals each and
strengths of the conditioning procedures. In given Pavlovian fear training in the oonditioning
Experiment 1, two simultaneous paradigms chambers. All groups received a 2-sec. tone-light
and one forward paradigm were studied. compound CS, and a 4-sec. i/2-ma. electric shock
These were assessed against a random US. For the three experimental groi.ps, the CS
schedule of CS and US presentations—a pro- was paired with the US in the following ways: For
Group F-2 (forward—2 sec.), the onset of the CS
cedure hypothesized by Rescorla (1967) to occurred 2 sec. before the onset of the US. For
yield no associative strength to the CS. Group E-0 (embedded—0 sec.), the onset of the
436 C. DONALD HETH AND ROBERT A. RESCORLA

CS occurred simultaneously with the onset of the rate during punishment. The punishment phase of
US. For Group E-l, the onset of the OS occurred 1 each session was divided into three periods of ten
sec. after the onset of the US. Each session con- minutes, and separate ratios were computed for
tained 10 such conditioning trials, with the inter- each period.
trial intervals determined by a rectangular distri-
bution of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 min.; the subjects were Results and Discussion
removed 6 min. after the last trial. A fourth group,
Group R (random), received the same USs deliv- The four groups did not differ in number
nr
ered at the same intertrial intervals; however, the of responses during the first 1/2 - of either
10 CSs of each session were delivered randomly test session, as revealed by a Kruskal-Wal-
throughout the hour, independently of US occur- lis test (Hs = 2.9 and 1.2, pa > .10). Conse-
rences. In Experiments 1 and 2 three subjects es-
caped from the conditioning chambers. One, a quently, the suppression observed during
member of Group R, escaped on both conditioning the second half of each session can be eval-
days. Consequently, this animal was dropped from uated against base-line response rates which
the experiment. The other two subjects escaped were comparable for all groups. The sup-
on only one of the two conditioning days; their pression ratios for the six 10-min. periods of
data were included in the analyses.
Recovery and Testing. Days 8 and 9 consisted the two sessions are plotted in Figure 1. As
of recovery days in which the subjects were re- Figure 1 shows, response-contingent presen-
turned to the Skinner boxes and received 1 hr. tations of the CS produced considerable sup-
of VI bar-press training. On Days 10 and 11 each pression of responding in the forward group,
animal was given 1-hr, test sessions to assess the
degree to which the CS could serve as a condi- Group F-2, across most of the testing peri-
tioned punisher. For the first 30 min. of each ods; the control group, Group R, showed
test session, the subjects were allowed to bar-press appreciable suppression only during the
for food on the VI-1 schedule as before. Beginning first 10-min. period. Of the two simultane-
with Minute 31, punishment was initiated. Each ous groups, Group E-0 showed more sup-
bar press produced a 2-sec. presentation of the CS.
A bar press during the CS had no effect upon its pression than Group E-l, with both falling
duration. The VI-1 schedule remained in force between Group F-2 and Group R.
during the punishment phase of the test session. These differences were evaluated by pool-
Performance during the test session was assessed ing individual suppression ratios over the
by means of suppression ratios (Annau & Kamin, three periods of the first test session. A
1961; Church, 1969) in the form of A/(A + B),
where B refers to the response rate prior to the Kruskal-Wallis test found group differences
initiation of punishment and A to the response to be significant (H = 18.42, p < .001).

.50 r-

£ -30
UJ
tr
a.
a.
w .20

.10 -

J_ _L
t 2 3 1 2 3
DAY 10 DAY 11
1 0 - M I N U T E PERIODS
FIG. 1. Mean suppression ratios for each 10-min. period of the two testing sessions of Experiment 1.
 FEAR CONDITIONING IN THE EAT
Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that Group
F-2 differed from Group R and Group E-l
(Us = 2 and 6.5, ps < .01). Comparisons
involving the two simultaneous groups
showed that Group E-0 differed from Group
R (U = 11, p < .05), but Group E-l did
not (U = 20.5, p > .10). No other compari-
sons were significant.
This pattern of results is supported by
multiple U tests for each 10-min. period. On
all six periods, Group F-2 differed from
Group R (ps < .05) and Group E-l (ps <
.01), Group E-0 differed from Group R on
Periods 2-5 (ps < .05). In addition, Group
E-0 showed more suppression than Group
E-l on Periods 4-6 (ps < .05) and less
suppression than Group F-2 on Periods 1
and 4 (ps < .05).
The significant response suppression ob-
served to Group E-0 demonstrates the ca-
pacity of a CS to acquire conditioned aver-
sive properties when its onset occurs simul-
taneously with that of shock. The data of
Experiment 1 indicate that this procedure is
somewhat less effective than one in which
the CS is presented prior to the US, al-
though the comparison was not so robust
statistically as might be expected. Further-
more, the possibility exists that paradigms
in which the onset of the CS occurs subse-
quent to the onset of the US might also
prove sufficient for conditioning. Indeed, the
data of Experiment 1 do not conclusively
establish the paradigm of Group E-l as the
limiting condition of such embedded para-
digms.
In this respect, it can be noted that the
random control, Group R, exhibited consid-
erable suppression during the first 10 min.
of the testing period. There is some recent
empirical evidence which indicates that a
random schedule of CSs and USs may yield
excitatory associative strength to the CS
(Kremer & Kamin, 1971; Quinsey, 1971). A
model of Pavlovian conditioning developed
by Rescorla and Wagner (1972) provides
a theoretical basis for understanding this
outcome. According to that model, certain
conditioning parameters could result in pre-
asymptotic associative values of the CS
which are excitatory. Two of these relevant
to the present discussion are: (a) highly
salient stimuli as CSs, and (6) very potent
437
US events (Rescorla, 1972). The use of a
tone-light compound as a CS in the present
experiment and the substantial length of
the US could have allowed such preasymp-
totic excitation. In that case Group R pro-
vides a highly conservative criterion
against which to evaluate excitatory condi-
tioning.
An alternative interpretation of the
embedded data should also be considered. It
could be that the onset of CS and US were
not effectively simultaneous for the orga-
nism. Different factors can be alluded to,
both mechanical (e.g., contact with the grid
bars not initially electrified due to the
scrambling sequence) and physiological
(e.g., different neural transmission rates of
CS and US) which might have resulted in
processing of the CS prior to the US. This
interpretation would explain not only the
demonstration of conditioning in Group E-0
but the failure to find reliable conditioning
to Group E-l.
These questions might be easily answered
by examining other temporally embedded
relationships of CS and US. Experiment 2
studies three such paradigms in which the
onset of the CS occurs .25, 1.0, or 2.0 sec.
after the onset of the US. In addition, since
there are both theoretical and empirical
grounds for believing that under the experi-
mental conditions of this investigation the
use of a random control is somewhat con-
servative, a different control procedure was
introduced. The subjects in this procedure
received the same number of CSs and USs
as the experimental groups, but all the CSs
were presented on Day 1 of conditioning
and all the USs on Day 2. This procedure
obviates the coincidental CS-US pairings
which may have produced conditioning in
Group R while not permitting the develop-
ment of conditioned inhibition expected
from an explicitly unpaired procedure
(Rescorla, 1967).
EXPERIMENT 2
Method
Subjects and Apparatus
The subjects were 32 male Sprague-Dawley rats
of the same age, and maintained in the same man-
ner, as those of Experiment 1. The apparatus and
438 C. DONALD HETH AND ROBERT A. RESCORLA

CS and US parameters were also identical to those
used in Experiment 1.
Procedure
Pretraining was administered in the same man-
ner as Experiment 1. Pavlovian conditioning was
likewise given on Days 6 and 7, with Groups E-!4,
B-l, and E-2 receiving the CS onset .25, 1.0, and
2.0 sec. after the onset of the US, respectively.
These groups were given 10 pairings each day on a
schedule like that of Experiment 1. The control
group, Group C-II (Control—Experiment 2), re-
ceived 20 presentations of the CS alone on Day 6
and 20 presentations of the US alone on Day 7.
Group C-II received 2-hr, sessions during this
stage, to allow the presentation of CSs and USs
according to the same schedule and within-session
density as the experimental groups. The 2-day
testing procedure was the same as that of Experi-
ment 1, with the exception that the VI-1 food
reinforcement schedule was discontinued for the
first 4 min. of the punishment stage. This feature
was introduced to eliminate from the early part
of the punishment phase some of the between-
subject variance due to different self-administered
reward experiences.
Results and Discussion
Statistical tests verified that the groups
did not differ in the number of bar presses
during the base-rate period of each test ses-
sion (Hs — 3.17 and 5.13, ps > .05). Mean
suppression ratios for the six 10-min. peri-
ods of testing are presented in Figure 2. As
this figure indicates, Group C-II showed lit-
tle suppression throughout the testing stage,
while Group E-i/4 suppressed substantially.
Groups E-l and E-2 demonstrated interme-
diate levels of suppression with the latter
showing some tendency to be less sup-
pressed than the former. Although be-
tween-experiment comparisons cannot be
taken as definitive, Group C-II shows less
overall suppression than Group R of the
previous experiment. As discussed above, it
would seem reasonable to attribute the dif-
ference to some amount of excitatory asso-
ciative conditioning to Group R.
These trends are supported by statistical
analyses conducted on the sum of the indi-
vidual suppression ratios across the three
periods of Test Session 1. A Kruskal-Wallis
test showed group differences to be highly
reliable (H = 17.72, p < .01). Multiple U
tests revealed that Groups E-1/^, E-l, and
E-2 were each significantly more suppressed
than the control, Group C-II (Us = 0, 2,
and 7; ps < .01). Groups E-l and E-2 did

.50

2 .40

z
o
a> .30
tO
Ul
tr
a. P"
a.
w .20

UJ
2
.10

D*
_L _L J_
2 3 1 2
DAY 10 DAY 11

10-MINUTE PERIODS

FIG. 2. Mean suppression ratios for each 10-min. period of the two testing sessions of Experiment 2.
 FEAR CONDITIONING IN THE RAT
not differ from each other (U = 25.5, p >
.10); Group E-2 differed significantly from
Group E-y4 (U = 13,p< .05), but Group
E-l did not (U = 17, p > .05). More de-
tailed statistical comparisons for each 10-
min. punishment period corroborated these
conclusions.
The statistical analyses clearly support
the conclusion that excitatory associative
conditioning can be established in other
embedded paradigms, specifically those in
which the onset of the 2-sec. CS occurs .25,
1.0, and 2.0 sec. after the onset of the 4-sec.
US. The data indicate that these relation-
ships can be consistently ordered according
to their relative effectiveness in producing
excitatory strengths, with a .25-sec. delay
being most effective and a 2.0-sec. delay
being the least.
EXPEKIMENT 3
The amount of suppression observed to
Group E-2 suggests that longer US-CS in-
tervals might also prove sufficient to estab-
lish the CS as a conditioned punisher. With
CS and US durations held constant, the
backward conditioning paradigm may rep-
resent the limit to which this interval can .50
be increased and still produce conditioning.
Experiment 3 was run to provide the addi-
tional data points which might be relevant
to such an interpretation. In addition to the
E-2 condition of Experiment 2, two back-
ward paradigms were examined in which ir
the onset of the CS followed termination of
the US by delays of 0.00 or .50 sec. o .30
C/5
Method UJ
Subjects and Apparatus
The subjects were 32 Sprague-Dawley rats,
similar in age to those of the previous experiments
and maintained on the same deprivation schedule.
The apparatus and stimulus parameters were those
used in Experiments 1 and 2.
Procedure
Magazine and pretraining were administered as
before. Days 6 and 7 consisted of Pavlovian condi-
tioning in which Groups E-2, B-0 (Backward—0
sec.), and B-Vi were given 10 CS-US pairings each
day. Group E-2 received the onset of the CS 2.0
sec. after the onset of the US; for Groups B-0 and
B-'/2, the onset of the CS occurred simultaneously
439
with, and .50 sec. after, the termination of the
US, respectively. The control group, Group C-III,
received 20 CS presentations on Day 6 and 20
USs on Day 7 in the same manner as Group C-II
of the previous experiment. The testing procedure
was the same as that of Experiment 2.
Results and Discussion
Appreciable differences among groups
were apparent only on Day 1 of testing;
therefore, only these data are presented
here. The groups did not differ in number of
bar presses during the first half of the test-
ing period (H - .31, p > .10). Mean sup-
pression ratios for the punishment phase of
the testing sessions are given in Figure 3. It
can be seen that Group C-III showed little
suppression of responding throughout the
testing stage. Group E-2 showed substantial
suppression during the first 10-min. period,
with decreasing amounts during subsequent
periods. Groups B-0 and B-i/fc showed inter-
mediate levels of suppression during the
first period, but their mean ratios did not
appear to differ from those of the control
group on subsequent periods.
As in the previous experiments, individ-
r-
tc
o.
.20 -
.10
1 1
I 2 3
10-MINUTE PERIODS
FIG. 3. Mean suppression ratios for each 10-min.
period of the testing session of Experiment 3.
440 C. DONALD HETH AND ROBERT A. RESCORLA
ual ratios were summed across all three pe-
riods for each subject. A Kruskal-Wallis
test of this measure showed that the groups
differed significantly (H = 9.55; p < .05).
Comparisons between groups snowed that
Group E-2 was more suppressed than
Groups C-III, B-0, and B-!/2 (Ua = 8, 14,
11; ps < .05). Neither Groups B-0 nor B-i/2
differed reliably from Group C-III, al-
though the former comparison approached
statistical significance (Us = 17 and 22; ps
= .065 and .164, respectively).
Although neither backward group differed
from the control group when suppression
ratios were collapsed across the three test-
ing periods, Figure 3 suggests that appreci-
able differences might be present on the first
10-min. period of testing. This impression
was confirmed by multiple comparisons
within this period. Both Groups B-0 and
B-i/2 differed significantly from the control
group (Us = 13 and 11, respectively; pa <
.05). The two backward groups did not dif-
fer between themselves (p > .10). Other
comparisons during the first 10-min. period
showed that Group E-2 was significantly
more suppressed than Groups C-III, B-0,
and B-i/2 (ps < .05). Group E-2 also dif-
fered from the other three groups on the
second period (ps < .05), but no other com-
parisons were significant for this period and
none were significant for the third.
.50r
2 .40
•—• Experiment 1
*—A Experiment 2
•—• Experiment 3
.30
.20
.10
-2 0 1
US-CS ONSET INTERVAL (ue)
FIG. 4. Mean suppression ratio during the first 10-min. period of testing as a function of the temporal
delay between onset of the US and onset of the CS.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Taken together, the three experiments of
this investigation have involved succes-
sively increasing the delay between onset of
the US and onset of the CS. Strong excita-
tory conditioning occurred when the CS was
presented in a forward relation with the
US; in addition, significant conditioning
could also be demonstrated when CS onset
occurred after the onset of the US—proce-
dures which have been commonly labeled as
simultaneous or backward. The pattern
which emerges within each experiment
shows decreasing effectiveness of condition-
ing with increases in the delay between US
onset and CS onset. This trend can be illus-
trated with data from the study as a whole.
Figure 4 presents mean suppression ratios
for the first 10 min. of testing plotted
against delay between US and CS onsets.
Although between-experiment comparisons
are complicated by the variation in overall
suppression between experiments, regular
decreases in conditioning strength as a
function of the US-CS delay are quite ap-
parent.
What is remarkable about the data de-
picted in Figure 4 is this regularity even
across delays which would normally distin-
guish forward, simultaneous, and backward
paradigms. It strongly suggests that varia-
tions in US-CS delay can be interpreted as
Z 3 CONTROLS
 FEAR CONDITIONING IN THE RAT
continuous manipulations of some underly-
ing variable sufficient for conditioning.
Specification of this variable may require
revision of many common conceptions con-
cerning the events which comprise the Pav-
lovian learning situation. Many investiga-
tors, for example, often treat the Pavlovian
reinforcer as a single unitary event with no
extension in time and consider US duration
solely as an intensity parameter. The re-
sults of the present investigation require a
more molecular analysis.
The type of analysis suggested by tradi-
tional conceptions of Pavlovian condition-
ing might consider the CS in an embedded
paradigm as being paired with some subset
of the interval following US onset. The
function depicted in Figure 4 suggests that
this interval can be systematically related
to decreasing effectiveness of the US event.
It may be that the level of effectiveness
begins to decline at some point after the on-
set, but remains sufficient for conditioning
even past the US termination. For example,
backward paradigms could pair the CS with
some "trace" of the US (Cautela, 1965).
Such a notion might retain the necessity of
forward conditioning relationships by relat-
ing amount of conditioning to the amount
of US or US trace which follows the CS.
What have traditionally been designated as
forward paradigms may have simply op-
timized this relationship.
More recent conceptions of the Pavlovian
learning situation emphasize the informa-
tional value of the CS in predicting the US.
The existence of simultaneous conditioning
is disturbing to many of the ways in which
theorists have begun to speak of informa-
tional variables. In the embedded para-
digms of this investigation, the CS does not
"predict" or "signal" the occurrence of the
US. Indeed, in most of them the best pre-
dictor of the US is its own onset. Of course,
it cannot be said that the CS provides no
information of other US variables which
would presumably yield excitatory strength
(such as the continuation of the US past CS
onset); but according to most informational
accounts, the CS would be considered re-
dundant with respect to US onset in pre-
441
dicting these events. Thus, the findings of
the present investigation seem to necessitate
revision of the conditions sufficient to estab-
lish a stimulus as an informational event.
The present findings are at variance with
several lines of research from American
laboratories which have found no evidence
of excitatory associative conditioning when
CS onset occurs with or after the onset of
the US. This evidence has generally been of
two kinds: (a) Most studies employing re-
sponse measures sensitive to excitatory as-
sociations have found no conditioning with
simultaneous or backward paradigms; (b)
alternatively, some recent studies specifi-
cally addressed to the question of inhibition
in backward conditioning have been able to
demonstrate conditioned inhibition as the
result of such pairings. Some mention
should be made of factors which might ac-
count for these discrepancies.
With respect to the first class of findings,
there are several features of most simulta-
neous and backward conditioning studies
which could be expected to attenuate the
magnitude of any associative conditioning.
One which is characteristic of studies em-
ploying a long latency response as a CR
(e.g., Bitterman, 1964, Experiment 3) is the
use of CSs of much longer duration than the
US. Consequently, there is a substantial pe-
riod of time in which the CS in these studies
is paired with an interval free of shock,
even in simultaneous paradigms. This inter-
val may serve to extinguish or otherwise
reduce any excitation which accrues to the
CS.
Another feature common to many studies
of conditioning is the use of methodology
which assesses the amount of conditioning
during acquisition. Typically, the CS is pre-
sented alone within a block of four or five
reinforced trials so that the CR can be sam-
pled independent of the disruptive effects of
the US (e.g., Smith, Coleman, & Gorme-
zano, 1969). There are two consequences of
such a procedure which would make it a
conservative test of simultaneous and back-
ward conditioning. Perlmuter, Kimble, and
Leonard (1968) have argued that these test
trials may weaken the conditioning, since
442 C. DONALD HETH AND ROBERT A. RESCORLA

the CS is then only partially reinforced. In Campbell and R. M. Church (Eds.), Punish-
addition to this effect, the presentation of ment and aversive behavior. Appleton-Cen-
tury-Crofts: New York, 1969.
CS alone trials introduces a bias unique to EGQER, M. D., & MILLER, N. E. Secondary rein-
simultaneous and backward procedures. In forcement in rats as a function of information
these paradigms, the CS is presented on re- value and reliability of the stimulus. Journal
inforced trials in compound with stimulus of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 97-104.
properties of the US itself; it is this com- EGQEB, M. D., & MILLER, N. E. When is a reward
reinforcing?: An experimental study of the in-
pound which is paired with the US, while formation hypothesis. Journal of Comparative
CS alone trials are always nonreinforced. It and Physiological Psychology, 1963, 56, 132-
is not unreasonable to expect the organism 137.
to make this discrimination and thus dem- HOFFMAN, H. S., & FLESHLEB, M. A relay sequenc-
ing device for scrambling grid shock. Journal
onstrate little or no conditioning to the CS of the Experimental Analysis oj Behavior, 1962,
alone. 5,329-330.
Two recent investigations have succeeded KAMIN, L. J. Backward conditioning and the con-
in demonstrating inhibition with ba'ckward ditioned emotional response. Journal of Com-
conditioning paradigms (Moscovitch & parative and Physiological Psychology, 1963,
56,517-519.
LoLordo, 1968; Siegel & Domjan, 1971). KIMBLE, G. A. Hilgard and Marquis' conditioning
These studies employed extinction-test pro- and learning. New York: Appleton-Century-
cedures and, unlike the present investiga- Crofts, 1961.
tion, gave extensive Pavlovian training. KREMER, E. F., & KAMIN, L. J. The truly random
control procedure: Associative or nonassocia-
Their results can be contrasted with those tive effects in rats. Journal of Comparative and
of Experiment 3, but need not be viewed as Physiological Psychology, 1971, 74, 203-210.
antithetical. The backward pairing of a CS MATSUMIYA, Y. The effects of US intensity and
with US is certainly overlaid with other CS-US pattern on conditioned emotional re-
critical events to which the organism may sponse. Japanese Psychological Research, 1960,
2, 35-42.
respond, such as the offset of the US and MOSCOVITCH, A., & LoLoRDO, V. M. Role of safety
the onset of a "safe" period following it. It in the Pavlovian backward fear conditioning
seems likely that the inhibitory strength is procedure. Journal of Comparative and Physi-
the asymptotic outcome after extensive ological Psychology, 1968, 66, 673-678.
training. Some of the points of Figure 4 MOWREB, 0. H., & AIKEN, E. G. Contiguity vs.
drive-reduction in conditioned fear: Temporal
might then represent preasymptotic values variations in conditioned and unconditioned
of CSs which would have been inhibitory stimulus. American Journal of Psychology,
had more training been given. Of course, 1954, 67, 26-38.
this qualification does not deny the exist- PERLMUTEB, L. C., KIMBLE, G. A., & LEONARD, T. B.
ence of excitatory conditioning with simul- Effect of a simultaneous conditioning proced-
ure upon subsequent extinction and acquisi-
taneous or backward paradigms at some tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
point in learning, nor does it deny the im- 1968, 77, 648-651.
plications for our understanding of the con- QTIINSEY, V. L. Conditioned suppression with no
ditioning process. CS-US contingency in the rat. Canadian Jour-
nal of Psychology, 1971, 25, 69-82.
REFERENCES RESCOHLA, R. A. Pavlovian conditioning and its
proper control procedures. Psychological Re-
ANNAU, Z., & KAMIN, L. J. The conditioned emo- view, 1967, 74, 71-80.
tional response as a function of intensity of the RESCORLA, R. A. Informational variables in Pav-
US. Journal of Comparative and Physiological lovian conditioning. In G. H. Bower and J. T.
Psychology, 1961, 54, 428-432. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and
BITTEHMAN, M. E. Classical conditioning in the motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
goldfish as a function of the CS-US interval. RESCORLA, R. A., & LoLoRDO, V. M. Inhibition of
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psy- avoidance behavior. Journal of Comparative
chology, 1964, 58, 359-366. and Physiological Psychology, 1965, 59, 406-
CATJTELA, J. R. The problem of backward condi- 412.
tioning. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 60, 135- RESCORLA, R. A., & WAGNER, A. R. A theory of
144. Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the
CHURCH, R. M. Response suppression. In B. A. effectiveness of reinforcement and nonrein-
 FEAR CONDITIONING IN THE RAT 443

forcement. In A. Black and W. F. Prokasy Classical conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating

(Eds.), Classical conditioning II. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.
SIEQEL, S., & DOMJAN, M. Backward conditioning
as an inhibitory procedure. Learning and Moti-
vation, 1971, 2, 1-11.
SMITH, M. C., COLEMAN, S. R., & GOEMEZANO, I.
membrane response at backward, simultaneous,
and forward CS-US intervals. Journal oj Com-
parative and Physiological Psychology, 1969,
59^ 226-231.
(Received January 14,1972)