Table 6.

McConnell et al. (2010; Experiments 2 and 3) results and best-fitting predictions.

Experiment	Group	Phase 1	Phase 2	Phase 3	Phase 4	Obs	RWM	WCM	CEM
1	Protect	48 A+ / 84 AB-	12 X+	36 BX- / 12 B- / 12 X-	NA	1.56	1.50	1.50	1.38
	Ctrl			36 CX- / 12 B- / 12 X-		0.85	0.93	0.78	0.85
	NoExt			60 B-		1.75	1.76	1.75	1.72
	Ext			48 X- / 12 B-		0.89	0.83	0.68	0.70
2	Protect Ext A	48 A+ / 84 AB- / 48 D-		36 BX- / 12 B- / 12	198 A-	1.01	1.34	1.01	1.16
	Protect Ctrl			X-	198 D-	1.62	1.34	1.67	1.70

Note: Ctrl = control; Ext = extinction. A-D and X were cues in a Pavlovian lick suppression procedure. A was counterbalanced with D, and B was counterbalanced with C. + represents the occurrence of a surrogate outcome that was paired with a footshock US in a session before testing. Thus, experimental manipulations were embedded in a sensory preconditioning procedure (see text for details). Obs = observed suppression (log s) to X at test. RWM = predictions by the Rescorla Wagner model, WCM = predictions by the Within-Compound model, and CEM = predictions by the Conjoint Error model.