From its earliest beginnings, American conditioning research using human subjects had to deal with the possibility that subjects might voluntarily control the reaction that the experimenter attempts to condition, with the result that voluntary control contaminates the study of conditioning in humans. A preliminary solution to the problem was achieved around 1940, ending the time frame of this survey. This article provides an historical survey of the conceptual background of the opposition of volition and reflexes; describes manifestations of the problem (...) in conditioning research; and critically examines earlier efforts to solve the problem as well as the presumptive solution that disposed of the issue by 1940. Lessons from this story are adduced. (shrink)

It is suggested that the control-system theory of Domjan et al. restates in engineering vocabulary the primary thesis of law-of-effect theories: namely, that classical-conditioning arrangements may involve CR-contingent reinforcement. The research cited by Domjan et al. is relevant to the idea that classical conditioning is an adaptive process, but is irrelevant to their control-system theory.

The discovery of selective associability of cues in classical conditioning has often been treated as an embarrassment to Pavlov, because he has been represented as a proponent of the "equivalence of associability of cues." According to that doctrine, except for the influence of differences in stimulus intensity, all environmental stimuli are equally susceptible to becoming conditioned stimuli if they are arranged in a suitable time-relation to any effective unconditioned stimulus . The current paper asks whether Pavlov explicitly made such a (...) claim and, if not, whether he could have endorsed equivalence of associability. Scientific controversy, the role that "the classics" play in scientific specialties, and the emblematic standing of the founding figures of a discipline or specialty constitute a framework for discussion of Pavlov's stand on the equivalence of associability. (shrink)

Human-eyelid conditioning was the principal source of information on Pavlovian conditioning, especially human, in the 1950s and 1960s, but it suffered a sharp decline in productivity, beginning in the late 1960s. The present article treats the decline as a case study with potential implications concerning the survival contingencies of research specialties. We make use of questionnaire data from eyelid-conditioning researchers and examine a variety of publication, topic-of-investigation, and institutional data to identify the major factors in the decline of human-eyelid conditioning.

The operation of voluntary processes can contaminate the study of Pavlovian conditioned responses in humans. The problem of voluntary control had apparently been solved by about 1940, particularly in human eyelid conditioning. Nonetheless, the problem returned in the early 1950s, calling forth a variety of methodological procedures for removing voluntary responses and/or voluntary-responding subjects from eyelid-conditioning data. During the 1960s, disagreement arose regarding the efficiency and comparability of alternative data-correction procedures; the rationale for data-correction; and whether, and under what experimental (...) conditions, eyelid-conditioning data ought to be corrected for voluntary responding. Circumstances that supported voluntary-response methodology are described, and points at which the methodology conflicted with the technical background of Pavlovian conditioning are noted. A diagnosis is offered for the failure, between 1950 and 1980, to solve again the problem of volition. (shrink)