. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as: Behav Processes. 2015 Sep 3;123:15–25. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.09.001

Table 3.

Design [simplified] of McConnell, Urushihara, and Miller (2010, Exp. 1) which was designed differentiate VH&W (and MSOP) from CH accounts of retrospective revaluation using a relative validity procedure.

Group	Phase 1	Phase 2	CH predict	VH&W predict
Exp	(AX-US / BX-) & (CY-US / DY-)	many BC-	X?->cr^*	X?->CR
			Y?->CR^*	Y?->CR^*
Ctrl	(AX-US / BX-) & (CY-US / DY-)	Context only	X?->cr^*	X?->cr^*
			Y?->cr^*	Y?->cr^*

Note. Conditioned stimuli (CSs) A, B, C, and D were click train, tone, white noise, and flashing light, counterbalanced; Target CSs X and Y were buzzer and SonAlert, counterbalanced. The US was a footshock. - indicates nonreinforcement. CR indicates robust conditioned responding; cr indicates weak conditioned responding.

indicates reponsing actually observed.