Effects of intermodality change on electrodermal orienting and on the allocation of processing resources

Two experiments studied the effects of intermodality change on electrodermal responses and on reaction time to a secondary task probe stimulus after 24 habituation training trials with either a tone or a vibrotactile stimulus. The probe was a visual stimulus of 500 ms duration, and within‐stimulus probes occurred 300 ms following stimulus onset. Experiment 1 crossed change versus no change with modality of the training stimulus. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) were larger in the experimental group than in the control on the test trial, and in the experimental group, test trial responses were larger than those on the first training trial. Probe reaction time was slower on the test trial in the experimental group than in the control, and within‐stimulus probe reaction time was slower than interstimulus interval reaction time early in the habituation series. Experiment 2 crossed change versus no change with the presence of a secondary task. Test trial SCRs were larger in the experimental group than in the control, regardless of whether or not the secondary task was present. In addition, test trial responses in the experimental group were larger than those on the first training trial in both the task and no‐task conditions. Within the task condition, reaction time was slower in the experimental condition than in the control on the test trial. In addition, reaction time in the experimental condition was slower during the change trial than during the first training stimulus. The data provide difficulties for noncomparator theories of habituation and seem to be most easily explained by theories of habituation that emphasize the importance of an extrapolatory process. Copyrigh

Confidentiality Issues in Psychological Research

There has been increased attention in recent years to the importance of individual privacy and professional confidentiality both in Australia and overseas. At the same time, psychologists' growing research interests in areas such as AIDS, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence have led to new ethical dilemmas over the contract of confidentiality between researchers and their research participants. The present paper discusses a number of issues regarding the ethics of confidentiality in psychological research. Following Bok (1989), the issues are highlighted within the context of four ethical principles that underlie researchers' obligations to preserve confidentiality. These principles are derived from considerations of privacy, loyalty, the pledge of silence, and professional codes of ethical standards. Each of these principles is illustrated with examples taken from recent research. We devote special attention to instances that appear to provide a clash between moral principles

Electrodermal and subjective reactions to fear‐relevant stimuli under threat of shock

Three experiments investigated normal subjects' reactions to pictures of fear‐relevant stimuli (snakes, spiders, guns) and control stimuli (e.g., flowers, rabbits) under threat of electric shock. First‐interval electrodermal responses (FTRs) and shock expectancy ratings were recorded. Experiment 1 demonstrated larger FTRs and expectancy ratings to fear‐relevant stimuli, with and without threat of electric shock. In Experiment 2, trait anxious subjects showed elevated expectancy ratings that were additive with the bias associated with fear‐relevant stimuli. Experiment 3 demonstrated that reactions to fear‐relevant stimuli were not an artefact of the expectancy rating task. There were no substantial differences between biological and technological fear‐relevant stimuli. Overall, the experiments confirm that fear‐relevant stimuli elicit larger reactions in the absence of any specific manipulation, such as conditioning. The results are most consistent with cognitive models that emphasise learning rather than genetic factors, and that attribute electrodermal reactions to elevated expectancy of aversive events