Download Does Vicarious Instigation Provide Support for Observational

Psychological Bulletin
1985, Vol. 97, No. I, 3-17
Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc,
0033-2909/85/$00.75
Does Vicarious Instigation Provide Support for Observational
Learning Theories? A Critical Review
G i n a G r e e n a n d J. G r a y s o n O s b o r n e
Utah State University
The vicarious instigation literature since 1962 is critically reviewed for its
adequacy as support for the observational learning theories of Aronfreed, Bandura,
Berger, and Hygge. These theories are examined for conditions purported to be
necessary to vicarious instigation. The different theories imply the possibility of
research differentiating them; however, most of the literature does not test any of
the theories in any direct way. In fact, only 3 of 30 studies reveal conditions
necessary to vicarious instigation. Unfortunately, no one theory is unequivocally
supported or diseonfirmed.
It has been 22 years since the publication
of an article entitled "Conditioning Through
Vicarious Instigation" (Berger, 1962). This
article promoted a considerable research effort
in the areas of vicarious instigation and vicarious classical conditioning. It has been
cited approximately 96 times since 1969 (Social Science Citation Index, 1969-1983) in
theoretical support of social learning theory,
particularly the emotional aspects of observational learning (e.g., Bandura, 1965, 1969,
1971a, 1971b, 1977; Hygge, 1976a, 1976b;
Ohman & Hygge, 1977), in theoretical support of the sociopsychological concepts of
sympathy, empathy, sadism, and masochism
(e.g., Krebs, 1970; Schwartz & Shapiro, 1973),
and attitude development (Kanekar, 1976).
The speculative relation of vicarious processes
to these phenomena then is of continuing
interest (e.g., Aronfreed, 1969; Berger, 1962).
The vicarious instigation literature includes
a potentially confusing array of experiments
and findings. Yet, with the exceptions of a
tangentially related logical/philosophical critique of "hyphenated" reinforcement processes (Gewirtz, 197 l) and a single review of
An earlier draft of this article was the basis of an
invited address to the Association for Behavior Analysis
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1982. The authors are
grateful to Frank Ascione, William Greene, Richard
Herrnstein, William Prokasy, Robert Rescorla, and Sebastian Striefel for their comments on an earlier draft of
this article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to J. Grayson
Osborne, Department of Psychology--UMC 28, Utah
State University, Logan, Utah 84322.
vicarious reinforcement studies (Thelen &
Rennie, 1972), there has been no critical
review of the literature dealing with vicarious
processes. The present article is an attempt
to rectify this omission partially.
Formally, it is our purpose to review and
critique the theory and research on vicarious
instigation to determine the use of this concept as a foundation o f the observational
learning of emotional behavior. To accomplish
this, the review will examine four theories o f
vicarious instigation and the procedures that
appear necessary to test the theories. We then
examine the experimental evidence to determine its support for the several theories in
the literature.
We believe there is little agreement regarding the necessary conditions for vicarious
instigation, and that many of the studies
purporting to produce vicarious instigation
do not contain research designs that allow
unequivocal inferences regarding theory.
Therefore, there is only limited support at
this time for observational learning theories
from the research in this area.
The review is restricted to vicarious instigation because of the broad nature of the
findings classified as vicarious. Because vicarious classical conditioning,~ vicarious reinforcement, and vicarious punishment appear
to follow vicarious instigation, it was determined to focus initially on vicarious instigation. Thus, this review includes research in
the area of vicarious instigation published
since 1962. It does not include studies that
examined only vicarious instrumental/operant
4
GINA GREEN AND J. GRAYSON OSBORNE
conditioning (i.e., studies subsumed under
the descriptors, vicarious reinforcement and
vicarious punishment). We also excluded from
this review experiments that mixed operant
and classical conditioning procedures, because
the procedures and the dependent variables
in such experiments deviate considerably from
the rest of the vicarious instigation/conditioning literature. These procedures (cf. Gormezano & Kehoe, 1975) use a conditioned
suppression paradigm in which a classically
conditioned stimulus is subsequently presented to the subject in an operant situation
(e.g., Venn & Short, 1973).
To acquaint the reader with vicarious instigation, the following definition is offered.
(This is modified in later sections in relation
to particular theoretical positions.) Vicarious
instigation is the occurrence of an unconditioned emotional response of an observer
dependent on the observer's inference (Hygge
& Dimberg, 1982) or perception (Berger,
1962) of the unconditioned emotional response o f a model.
Vicarious instigation is an important phenomenon in its own right because it describes
how one individual is affected by another's
emotions. Additionally, it is important because the resultant behaviors of the observer
may be conditioned to formerly neutral aspects of the situation. That is, vicarious classical conditioning may follow from vicarious
instigation. Vicarious instigation may also
play a role in instrumental conditioning when
perception of another's unconditioned emotional response leads to a vicariously instigated response o f the observer, which in turn
reinforces the observer's prior behavior (Berger, 1962). For example, an observer's instrumental response, such as giving a gift, produces an unconditioned emotional response
in the receiver. Theoretically, the unconditioned emotional response functions as an
unconditioned stimulus to the observer, producing an unconditioned emotional response
by the observer that may reinforce the observer's preceding instrumental response (i.e.,
the gift-giving; Berger, 1962, p. 453).
Prototypic Experiment
Most investigations of vicarious instigation
(and vicarious classical conditioning) use
sirn~lar procedures. The typical experiment
is arranged as follows: One of two subjects is
assigned the role of model, the other the role
of observer, and both are instructed regarding
participation in the study. One subject,
the model, is actually the experimenter's
confederate, whose behavior is trained. Both
individuals are connected to one or more
monitoring devices, ostensibly to allow measurement of some physiological (e.g., electrodermal) or skeletal (e.g., electromyographic)
response, although usually the model's responses are not recorded. The model is then
supposedly shocked faradically (i.e., the unconditioned stimulus to the model); however,
the model rarely experiences an unconditioned stimulus in actuality. During acquisition trials, a hypothetically neutral stimulus
(tone or light) precedes the alleged administration of the unconditioned stimulus to the
model. Several unreinforced presentations of
the neutral stimulus to the model are interspersed throughout the acquisition phase or
are massed following acquisition trials to test
for conditioning of the observer's emotional
responses, which are usually indicated by the
foregoing physiological responses. The observer's responses are recorded throughout
the experimental session.
The foregoing describes several events that
may be functional stimuli for an observer in
the vicarious instigation preparation. After
briefly reviewing four theoretical positions on
vicarious instigation, the logic underlying vicarious processes and the research comparisons implied are discussed.
Observational Learning Theory
and Vicarious Processes
Historical Views
Historically, the vicarious concept appears
in social psychology under the rubric, sympathy, beginning as early as the writings of
Adam Smith (cited in Allport, 1954). McDougall (1908) wrote that emotions could be
produced by an object or event itself or the
perception of emotion derived from observing
the behavior of another individual. His theory
relied on instinct for an explanation as to
why this sympathetic induction occurred
(Allport, 1924).
Allport (1924) proposed instead that it was
"the knowledge of the conditions affecting
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VICARIOUS INSTIGATION
[the performance]," that is, "the whole situation rather than the perception of an emotion
in another which aroused the emotion in us"
(p. 235). In m o d e m terms, Allport invoked
one's conditioning history with respect to
fear-provoking situations and stimulus generalization to account for fear arousal at the
sight of fear responses by others.
Berger's Theory
The m o d e m treatment of vicarious processes began with Berger's (1962) formulation,
which implicated a conditioning model. An
observer was emotionally aroused by perceiving the emotional response of a model, and
the observer's emotional response was conditioned to contiguous neutral stimuli.
Berger differentiated between vicarious instigation and direct instigation that involved
a second organism that supplied in its overt
behavior an unconditioned stimulus that directly instigated responding in an observer.
His intent was to relegate the concept of
vicariousness to emotional responses effected
in an observer from the perceived emotional
state of the model and no other event. To
accomplish this, it was necessary to define
experimental procedures that would separate
direct (he called it pseudovicarious) instigation
from vicarious instigation. This required separating observer responses to the unconditioned response of the model, observer responses to the unconditioned stimulus to the
model, observer responses to combinations
of these, and observer responses due to expectations that the observer would be treated
like the model (e.g., shocked). Residual effects
constituted vicarious instigation.
Bandura' s Theory
Vicarious processes play a central role in
social learning theory where vicarious instigation and vicarious classical conditioning
are viewed as important to the acquisition of
emotional responses (Bandura, 1965, 1969,
1971a, 1971b, 1977). Bandura (1969, 1971a,
1977) noted that another person's emotional
response conveyed through vocal, facial, and
postural cues could arouse an emotional response in the observer, and this response
could then be conditioned to environmental
cues. Affective cues acquired their instigating
value as a result of similarities between one's
5
experiences and the experiences of others,
much as was suggested by Allport (1924).
Shared or c o m m o n experiences made the
consequences accruing to others predictive of
outcomes of one's own experiences (Bandura,
1977). According to this theory, vicarious
instigation occurred through an intervening
self-arousal process (i.e., the consequences
experienced by the model were imagined to
occur to oneself) and an emotional response
was generated in the observer (Bandura, 1969,
1977).
Among several differences from Berger's
(1962) view was the extent to which Bandura
emphasized the overt unconditioned response
of the model as the primary source of instigation for the observer. Recall that in Berger's
(1962) formulation, any response on the part
of the observer that was elicited by the model's
overt actions was considered direct instigation.
Bandura wrote that it was precisely because
such social cues had acquired instigating
properties t h a t the observer was emotionally
aroused to begin with (Bandura, 1969, p.
168). From this viewpoint, the unconditioned
response of the model was not only a legitimate source of vicarious instigation but the
most important source:
It is exceedinglyditi~cult to establish preciselythe stimulus
sources of the observer'semotionalstate since the behavior
of others, depending on its character, undoubtedly augments or reduces the effects of environmental eliciting
stimuli. The most convincing demonstration of vicarious
instigation is therefore provided under conditions where
the observer's emotional responses are elicited entirely
by the performer's affectiveexpressions. (Bandura, 1969,
p. 169).
Aronfreed's Theory
Aronfreed also did not agree wholly with
Berger's theory, although he did accept major
portions of it. For example, Aronfreed (1969)
differentiated between empathetic and vicarious experience, whereas Berger did not:
Empathy may be used to refer to the child's affective
experience when it is elicited by cues of a corresponding
affective state [italics added] in the expressive behavior
of another person. (p. 292)
The term vicarious is more appropriate when the child's
affective experience is elicited by its observation of the
stimulus events [italics added] which impinge on another
person. (p. 292)
For Berger, both these sources of stimulation
were defined as direct instigation. Bandura's
6
GINA GREEN AND J. GRAYSON OSBORNE
position equates with Aronfreed's definition
of empathy and not his definition of vicarious.
Aronfreed (1969) essentially agreed with Berger regarding his third source o f direct instigation:
The concepts of "empathetic'" and "vicarious" can be
applied accurately only to those components of the
child's affectivestates which are elicited by its perception
of the affective experience of others--that is, to those
components which are independent of the social stimuli
which it perceivesas having a direct impact upon itself.
(p. 293)
Aronfreed's final statement appears more
consonant with Berger's position. Empathic
and vicarious stimuli are separated from social
stimuli in the situation that could directly
arouse the observer, and vicarious processes
are due only to "affective experience" (read:
responses?) of the model. One is left not
knowing precisely what Aronfreed considered
the necessary conditions for vicarious instigation, because in the former quote (p. 292)
the stimulus to the model is important,
whereas in the latter (p. 293) empathy and
vicarious instigation appear to blend and the
model's response appears important. Because
of the clarity o f the difference between empathy and vicarious instigation in his first
statement, we consider Aronfreed's position
on vicarious instigation to define the unconditioned stimulus to the model as a necessary
event.
Hygge 's Theory
Hygge (1976a) proposed that information
to the observer regarding the model's circumstances is the sole necessary condition for
vicarious instigation. From this information
the observer perceives or infers the emotional
response of the model. Events such as the
unconditioned stimulus to the model or the
model's unconditioned response constitute
aspects of the necessary condition if they
convey information. Where these events convey no information they do not so function.
No independent measures of the presence or
absence of information were presented by
Hygge, so it is assumed that the definition of
an event as containing information is post
hoc. Moreover, his theory also implies the
possibility of vicarious instigation in the absence of either an unconditioned stimulus to
the model or a model's unconditioned response.
The foregoing suggests a lack of clarity and
agreement among these four theories as to
the necessary conditions for vicarious instigation. Although it may be difficult to demonstrate necessary conditions experimentally,
the theories imply this possibility. Next, we
examine the procedures used to produce
vicarious instigation and, by inference from
each theory, the research contrasts necessary
to conclude what produces experimental effects in this area.
Logical Research Contrasts to Examine
Vicarious Instigation
The determination of the necessary conditions for vicarious instigation is restricted
by the possible events in the paradigm and
the ease with which they can be operationalized. The major problem is what actually
constitutes the unconditioned stimulus to the
observer. How can it be isolated? The researcher is restricted further by what each
theorist purports are the necessary conditions.
Thus, research designs will be dictated by
theory. We discuss first the events that can
be possibly construed as the unconditioned
stimulus to the observer, suggest research
contrasts that isolate particular factors, and
then examine what particular research outcomes mean to each theory.
Unconditioned Stimulus to the Model and
the Model's Unconditioned Response
In the vicarious instigation paradigm, the
two events of consequence are the unconditioned stimulus to the model and the unconditioned response of the model. Additionally,
there may be instructions conveyed to the
subjects by the experimenter, and these may
concern either the unconditioned stimulus to
the model, the unconditioned response o f the
model, or both. These seem to be the only
overt, measurable events that can be operationalized by an experimenter and experienced by an observer in this preparation.
There are, therefore, a finite number of contrasts possible among them, namely, all possible combinations of their presence or absence. Logical manipulation of the combinations of the unconditioned stimulus to the
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VICARIOUS INSTIGATION
7
model and unconditioned response of the dition 1 make significantly more instigated
model (suspending consideration of instruc- responses than those who experience Conditions for the moment) results in the four tion 2, the instigation relates to the unconexperimental conditions listed in Table 1. ditioned stimulus to the model. If the converse
The possible experimental contrasts between occurs, the instigation relates to the unconeach pair of experimental conditions allow a ditioned response of the model, If no differdetermination of two of the important factors ences result from such a contrast, then the
in vicarious instigation. The same rationale effects of each event could be similar but no
can be applied to the literature to determine conclusion is possible in the absence of adthose studies that identify specific events ditional contrasts (e.g., Contrasts 1 vs. 4 and
causing instigation. Subsequently, it may be 2 vs. 4). The outcomes of these contrasts
possible to state which of the several theories imply the functional significance of two of
appear to explain vicarious instigation best.
the events in the instigation preparation.
In Table 1, as an example we examine the Question marks in the Functional Significance
possible outcomes of an experimental contrast columns of Table 1 suggest intuitively unlikely
between Condition 1 and Condition 2. This outcomes for stimulus-response (S-R) theory
requires one experimental group to observe .(e.g., where the presence of a presumably
an unconditioned stimulus to a m o d e l - - t o
excitatory stimulus leads to decreased rewhich stimulus the model makes no re- sponding by the observer, that is, less instis p o n s e - a n d a second experimental group to gation). This logical analysis shows that there
observe no unconditioned stimulus to a model
are the same number of contrasts where an
but the model responds anyway (e.g., Berger,
outcome decides in favor of and against the
1962, Exp. II). The outcomes seem reasonably unconditioned response of the model and the
clear: If the observers who experience Con- unconditioned stimulus to the model as effective conditions in vicarious instigation.
Table 1
Combinations of the Unconditioned Stimulus to
the Model (US.,) and Unconditioned Response of
the Model (UR,~) in Vicarious Instigation Studies
Functional significance
Contrasts
Outcome
Pro
Con
1 vs. 2
1> 2
1 < 2
US=
UR=
URn,
US.,
lvs. 3
NSD
1>3
1 < 3
1 vs. 4
2vs. 3
2 vs. 4
3 vs. 4
NSD
1> 4
1<4
NSD
2>3
2<3
NSD
2> 4
2<4
NSD
3> 4
3<4
NSD
?
UR=
USm
?
UR=
UR=
US.,
?
US=
UP,=
?
US=, UR*,
?
?
US,,
USm
?
UR*,
?
US=, URm
Note. 1 = US= + no UP,=; 2 --- no US= + UP,=; 3 =
US= + UR=; 4 = no USm + no UR*,. USm = unconditioned stimulus to the model; UR= = unconditioned
response of the model;? = unexplained outcome;NSD =
no significant difference.
Theoretical Implications of Experimental
Contrasts
Berger. There are at least three difficulties
with Berger's theoretical position that are
fairly obvious, as they were to Berger himself
(Berger, 1962, p. 465). First, a substantial
number of contrasted conditions is necessary
to ascertain vicarious instigation. Second, the
theoretical unconditioned stimulus to the observer (i.e., the emotional response of the
model) is not directly observable, seemingly
buried as it is in the model. Third, the
investigator is in the unenviable position of
precluding many nonvicarious effects to observe any residual vicarious effects and cannot
apparently produce any residual vicarious
effects independently of the many nonvicarious effects.
Berger's theory gains no support from any
of the pair-wise contrasts in Table 1 taken
one at a time, because these contrasts result
in demonstrating the effectiveness of the unconditioned stimulus to the model, the unconditioned response of the model, or both
of these events in the instigation preparation.
The unconditioned stimulus to the model
8
GINA GREEN AND J. GRAYSON OSBORNE
alone and the unconditioned response of the
model alone must produce no effect to support Berger's theory unequivocally. Where
they do produce some effect together, Berger
theorized an additional effect such that the
sum o f the effect of the unconditioned stimulus to the model and the unconditioned
response of the model is less than the effect
of the unconditioned stimulus to the model
and unconditioned response o f the model
when they occur together. This appears to
require that studies supporting Berger's theory
contain: (a) Contrast l versus 4 where the
outcome is no significant difference; (b) Contrast 2 versus 3 where Contrast 2 < 3 or there
is no significant difference; (c) Contrast 1
versus 3 where Contrast l < 3 or there is no
significant difference; (d) Contrast 3 versus 4
where Contrast 3 > 4; and (e) a contrast in
which the effect of the unconditioned stimulus
to the model from Condition l and the effect
of the unconditioned response of the model
from Condition 2, if any, are s u m m e d and
compared with the total effect from Condition
3. If the latter is greater than the former, then
Berger's theory is supported.
By extension, outcomes of Contrast l versus
3 where Contrast 1 > 3 or Contrast 2 versus
3 where Contrast 2 > 3 would be p r i m a facie
evidence against Berger's theory.
Bandura. Bandura's language makes it
difficult to determine what he considered the
necessary conditions for vicarious instigation,
The overt behavior of the model is said to
modulate the effects of "environmental eliciting stimuli." From this it can be inferred
that some of the model's responses are not
necessary to vicarious instigation. This theory
appears to separate the model's instrumental
responses from the model's affective responses. Seemingly, the escape response of the
model from apparent shock is not a valid
elicitor of instigation. However, a grimace or
an "Ouch!" is, surmising that a grimace or
an "Ouch!" is an affective expression. The
escape response, however, affects how arousing
the grimace or "Ouch!" is.
The theory rules out the remaining events
as necessary to vicarious instigation. As causal
conditions, the theory excludes: (a) observer
responses to the unconditioned stimulus to
the model that are absent from model affective
responses; (b) observer responses to the in-
strumental response of the model that are
absent from model affective responses; and
(c) interactions between these two conditions.
Bandura's theory also requires a demonstration that the model's affective responses are
necessary to instigation (i.e., presence/absence
of the model's affective reactions is congruent
with presence/absence of the observer's emotional response). Because Bandura noted that
the observer's emotional response can also
be modulated by these other events, combinatorial effects should be sought between the
observer's emotional response on one hand
and the model's affective and instrumental
responses on the other; between the unconditioned stimulus to the model and the model's affective responses on one hand and the
observer's emotional response on the other;
and between the unconditioned stimulus to
the model, the model's instrumental response,
and the model's affective responses on one
hand and the observer's emotional response
on the other.
Bandura's position is methodologically
more tenable than Berger's because the necessary condition for vicarious instigation is
overt. However, Bandura's position raises additional questions. The implicit division o f
the model's response into instrumental and
affective classes necessitates a valid means of
separating and defining the two classes of
responses. The difficulties are compounded
if the theory does not consider these responses
to be mutually exclusive (i.e., to belong only
to one of these classes and not the other). I f
they are mutually exclusive, then independent
methods to determine which response is
which are needed. If the responses are not
mutually exclusive, then research designs that
separate effects due to the model's response
are critical to the subsequent findings of
vicarious instigation.
In this vein, Bandura's theory would be at
least partially supported by any enhancement
of instigated responding due to the unconditioned response of the model (Table 1). This
support would be weak if the studies from
which it was inferred did not contain conditions that ruled out any enhancement due to
the unconditioned stimulus to the model
(e.g., Contrast 1 vs. 2, Table 1). Thus, a
positive result for Contrast 1 versus 3 (i.e., a
finding that l < 3) would not be unequivocal
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VICARIOUS INSTIGATION
support for Bandura's theory because further
contrasts would be required to show whether
there was any effect due to the unconditioned
stimulus to the model.
Aronfreed. Although Aronfreed believed
that empathetic and vicarious experiences
often occur together, each implies different
experimental tests for its examination. When
vicarious instigation is examined from Aronfreed's position, it is necessary to show that
the observer's emotional arousal is due only
to the unconditioned stimulus to the model.
This necessitates an experimental test that
removes responding by the model (presumably both instrumental and affective).
Thus, Aronfreed's theory of vicarious instigation gains support from any of the contrasts in Table 1 that favor an effect due to
the unconditioned stimulus to the model. As
with the Bandura theory, some of the outcomes are more equivocal than others. For
example, Contrast 2 versus 3 in which the
result is Contrast 2 < 3 does not rule out the
possibility that the effects of the unconditioned response by the model contribute
something to the result. The outcome of
Contrast 1 versus 2 is much less equivocal.
Hygge. Hygge's theory suffers not only
from the lack of a method to predetermine
informativeness (the necessary condition), but
also from similar difficulties attendant to
Berger's theory. Where there is an overt unconditioned stimulus to the model and/or an
unconditioned response by the model, one or
both of these stimuli could produce emotional
arousal by the observer. If either event does
so, it must be determined that the information
these events carry is responsible. Otherwise,
the instigation is direct. Thus, this theory
also must separate the observed instigation
into that which is direct and that which
remains, and it must do so in the possible
absence of any independent method of determining the presence or absence of information
in the overt event.
Further, direct instigation is implied where
there is information conveyed to the observer
in the unconditioned stimulus to the model
or the model's unconditioned response but
where the observer does not infer the model's
emotional response. This aspect, internal to
the observer, is also a difficulty with Bandura's
and Aronfreed's theories, both of which re-
9
quire active cognitions by the observer that
may be difficult to measure. Yet more difficult
is the case in which there is no information
to the observer, no unconditioned stimulus
to the model, and no response by the model
of any kind, but the observer infers an emotional response of the model (i.e., a kind of
false positive error). This would appear to
constitute vicarious instigation for Berger and
Hygge but not for Bandura and possibly not
for Aronfreed.
As for Berger no one pair-wise contrast in
Table 1 suffices to support Hygge's theory.
Given the absence of a valid method to
determine information conveyed independently of the event conveying it, no one or a
combination of the contrasts in Table 1 can
disprove the theory either. (Recall the latter
was not the case for Berger.) A specific test
of the Hygge theory must either not be possible or require something other than the
manipulation of the events in Table 1. One
possibility would be to convey information
about the unconditioned stimulus to the
model or the unconditioned response o f the
model via instructions to the observer in the
absence of either an actual unconditioned
stimulus to the model or an observable unconditioned response of the model.
Instructions to observers can constitute
another set of potential instigating events. In
most studies, verbal or written instructions
about the unconditioned stimulus to the
model, the unconditioned response of the
model, or both were included in subject
briefings prior to their participation in the
experiment (e.g., Geer & Jarmecky, 1973).
The possibility that instructions should be
considered independent variables in their own
right is suggested by Hygge's theory, if information at least partially constitutes instructions. Although all possible combinations of
instructions with the unconditioned stimulus
to the model and the unconditioned response
of the model and contrasting conditions could
be described, it is clear from the following
analysis of the literature that most investigators did not consider instructions a major
independent variable.
In sum, experimental tests appear at least
possible to determine the existence of vicarious instigation. For Berger, these tests must
show an extra effect of the combination of
l0
GINA GREEN AND J. GRAYSON OSBORNE
the unconditioned stimulus to the model and
the unconditioned response of the model. For
Aronfreed, these tests must show the effect
of the unconditioned stimulus to the model
only. For Bandura, they must show the effect
of the unconditioned response of the model
only. For Hygge, these tests must show the
effect of information only. Next we turn to
the literature to examine the presence and
absence of these experimental tests in an
attempt to determine what constitutes the
effective stimulus to the observer and whether
or not one theory is more substantiated by
the outcomes in the literature than others.
Analysis o f the Evidence
Presence in the Literature of Events Possibly
Functioning as the Unconditioned Stimulus
to the Observer
At least one theorist (Berger) considered
anticipation of the unconditioned stimulus
an important source of direct, rather than
vicarious, instigation for observers. In 19 of
30 studies, all observers were instructed specifically that they would not experience the
unconditioned stimulus. In one study observers were told they would receive the unconditioned stimulus (Craig, 1968), and in two
studies one group of subjects was told to
expect the unconditioned stimulus, whereas
another was informed they would not experience the unconditioned stimulus (Bandura
& Rosenthal, 1966; Craig & Lowery, 1969).
One study did not involve an unconditioned
stimulus to any observer or model (Berger &
Hadley, 1975), and in another observers saw
slides ostensibly representing unconditioned
stimuli for the model, but observers were not
instructed beforehand that they would experience the unconditioned stimulus (Hygge &
Ohman, 1978). For the remaining six studies,
the presence or absence of such instructions
could not be ascertained.
Table 2 shows whether the unconditioned
stimulus to the model and unconditioned
response of the model in each study were
indicated to observers in some way other
than by instructions, and whether instructions
about these events were delivered to observers.
For the unconditioned stimulus to the model,
an indicator of its delivery (such as a light
signaling onset of shock) or the clear presence
of an actual unconditioned stimulus to the
model (such as a container o f ice for a cold
pressor test) was considered evidence of an
unconditioned stimulus to the model. In the
case of the unconditioned response of the
model, an observable movement (e.g., a r m
jerk), facial expression, or vocalized response
to the ostensive unconditioned stimulus qualified. There are m a n y possible combinations
of events when instructions are included.
Separation of the unconditioned stimulus to
the model and/or the unconditioned response
of the model in the instigating situation from
instructions about those events may be necessary to determine empirical support for
Hygge's theory.
From Table 2 it can be seen that 12 studies
did not confound an indicated unconditioned
stimulus to the model or unconditioned response of the model with instructions about
either. Included in that group are: one study
involving instructions about the unconditioned stimulus to the model and no unconditioned response by the model, either indicated or instructed (Hygge & Ohman, 1976b);
one study in which both events were indicated
but not otherwise instructed (Craig & Lowery,
1969); two studies in which both events were
indicated but no instructions about them
were provided to observers (Bernal & Berger,
1976; Yamaguchi, Harano, & Egawa, 1978);
and eight studies that provided instructions
but no other indicator of the unconditioned
stimulus to the model, while the model made
an unconditioned response and there were
no instructions about that event (Aniskiewicz,
1979; Bandura & Rosenthal, 1966; Brown,
1974; Ogston & Davidson, 1972; Silver &
Greco, 1975; Sutker, 1970; Vaughan & Lanzetta, 1980).
Two studies confounded the unconditioned
stimulus to the model but either involved no
unconditioned response of the model or provided the reader with no information about
it (Craig, 1968; Hygge & Ohman, 1976a). In
five studies the unconditioned stimulus to the
model was both indicated and instructed,
whereas the unconditioned response of the
model was only instructed (Craig & W e i n stein, 1965; Hygge, 1976b, 1978; Hygge &
Dimberg, 1982; Hygge & Ohman, 1978). One
study confounded instructions about an in-
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VICARIOUS INSTIGATION
dicator of the unconditioned stimulus to the
model, whereas there was an observable unconditioned response by the model but no
instructions about it (Vaughan & Lanzetta,
1981). For these eight studies, it cannot be
determined whether potential effects of the
unconditioned stimulus to the model are due
to some indication of the delivery of that
stimulus, instructions about it, or both. Effects
of the unconditioned response of the model
could be attributed cleanly to either an indi-
11
cator of its occurrence or instructions in six
of these studies. This group of studies constitutes over one quarter (27%) of the vicarious
instigation literature.
For almost another one third of the studies
in this area (9/30), the unconditioned stimulus
to the model and the unconditioned response
of the model were both indicated and instructed (Baron, 1970a, 1970b; Berger, 1962;
DiLollo & Berger, 1965; Geer & Jarmecky,
1973; Kravetz, 1970, 1974). In these cases,
Table 2
,'
Experimental Events Possibly Serving as the Unconditioned Stimulus to the Observer
USm
Study
Indicator
UR=
Instructions
Movement
Instructions
Studies with unconfounded events (indicators or instructions)
Hygge & Ohman (1976b)
Craig & Lowery (1969)
Bernal & Berger (1976)
Yamaguchi, Harano, & Egawa (1978)
Bandura & Rosenthal (1966)
Sutker (1970)
Ogston & Davidson (1972)
Brown (1974)
Silver & Greco (1975)
Aniskiewicz (1979)
Vaughan & Lanzetta (1980; Exp. 1)
Vaughan & Lanzetta (1980; Exp. II)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Studies confounding indicated events and instructions
Craig (1968)
Hygge & Ohman (1976a)
Craig & Weinstein (1965)
Hygge (1976b)
Hygge (1978)
Hygge & Ohman (1978)
Hygge & Dimberg (1982)
Vaughan & Lanzetta ( 1981)
Berger (1962; Exp. I)
Berger (1962; Exp. II)
Berger (1962; Exp. III)
DiLollo & Berger (1965)
Baron ( ! 970a)
Baron (1970b)
Geer & Jarmecky (i 973)
Kravetz (1974)
Kravetz (1970)
X
×
×
X
X
X
X
X
×
×
×
X
X
X
×
×
X
X
X
×
xb
Xb
×
X
X
×
×
×
X
×
×
×b
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
×
X
X
X
×
X
×
X
×
X
×
×
X
×d
×e
Note. For Hygge and Ohman (1976b), there was no independent indicator of U S m delivery, but model actually received
US. USm = unconditioned stimulus to model; URm = unconditioned response of model.
• Observers in one condition were instructed about model's movement, but that movement was not a URm (no US
preceded it). b Instructions described different intensities of US~ for each of two or more experimental
groups, c~bserversweret~dt~n~t~model~sfacialresponses~butweregivenn~furtherinstructi~nsab~utURm, dOne
group of observers was told that model's response was due to shock; another group was told that it was the result of
model's viewing slides of nonsense syllables. • One group of observers was told that model's response was due to
shock; another group (no shock--heart rate change) was told that model's response was the result of exercise.
12
GINA G R E E N A N D J. GRAYSON OSBORNE
outcomes cannot be isolated as due to either
the unconditioned stimulus to the model, the
unconditioned response of the model, or instructions about either event. Thus, over half
of the studies in this literature could not
separate effects due to the unconditioned
stimulus to the model from instructions about
it, and almost one third could not make the
analogous distinction for the unconditioned
response of the model.
What is the Unconditioned Stimulus
to the Observer?
Table 3 summarizes studies with designs that
permit at least one of the contrasts described
in Table 1, findings of statistical significance
for the contrasts examined, and theoretical
inferences, if any, possible from each finding.
Studies are classified as to whether they confounded an indicated unconditioned stimulus
to the model and/or unconditioned response
of the model with instructions about either
event (refer to Table 2).
Unconditioned response of the model. Resuits from any contrasts indicating that the
unconditioned response of the model is the
effective stimulus for vicarious instigation
would support Bandura's theory, at least partially. A Contrast 1 versus 3 finding in which
1 < 3 implies an effect of the unconditioned
response of the model but permits no inference about the role of the unconditioned
stimulus to the model. This is because it
compares presence and absence of the unconditioned response of the model while holding
presence of the unconditioned stimulus to
the model constant. Six studies reported such
findings (see Table 3), but two of those (Baron,
1970a; Yamaguchi et al., 1978) also reported
no significant differences between Conditions
1 and 3, a result that suggests no effect of
the unconditioned response of the model.
Two studies by Kravetz (1970, 1974) also
resulted in no significant differences between
Conditions 1 and 3, contrary to Bandura's
position. Note that six of the eight studies
reporting results of Contrasts 1 versus 3
confounded indicated events and instructions
(Baron, 1970a, 1970b; Berger, 1962, Exp. II;
DiLollo & Berger, 1965; Kravetz, 1970, 1974).
Stronger tests of Bandura's theory are found
in studies that support effects of the uncon-
ditioned response of the model and simultaneously rule out effects due to the unconditioned stimulus to the model. Significant
findings from Contrast 1 versus 2 where the
outcome is 1 < 2 or Contrast 2 versus 4
where the outcome is 2 > 4 would accomplish
this. Alternately, a finding from Contrast 1
versus 3 where the outcome is 1 < 3 (evidence
for an effect of the unconditioned response
of the model) in combination with a nonsignificant finding from either Contrast 1 versus
4 or Contrast 2 versus 3 (suggesting no effect
of the unconditioned stimulus to the model)
in the same study would also constitute strong
evidence for Bandura's position. No study
reported an outcome of 1 < 2, but Berger
(1962, Exp. II) reported outcomes of 2 > 4
as well as 1 < 3 (pro unconditioned response
of the model) and no significant difference in
Contrast 1 versus 4 (con unconditioned stimulus to the model). DiLollo and Berger (I 965)
likewise obtained an outcome of 1 < 3 and
no difference in Contrast 1 versus 4. These
studies appear to have demonstrated effects
of the unconditioned response of the model
in the absence of effects of the unconditioned
stimulus to the model in support of Bandura's
theory. However, both studies confounded
actual occurrence of both events with instructions, producing interpretation problems
discussed earlier in this article.
Unconditioned stimulus to the model. Partial support for Aronfreed's position comes
from studies contrasting Conditions 2 and 3.
Presence/absence of the unconditioned stimulus to the model is manipulated, whereas
presence/absence of the unconditioned response of the model is held constant. This
contrast does not factor out effects due to the
unconditioned response of the model. All
studies reporting results of Contrast 2 versus
3 confounded indicated events and instructions, so although five of six appear to support
Aronfreed's position (Berger, 1962, Exps. I,
II, III; DiLollo & Berger, 1965; Kravetz,
1970), no conclusions are possible as to the
relative contribution of the actual unconditioned stimulus to the model, instructions
about the unconditioned stimulus to the
model, or both.
The strongest case for Aronfreed's position
obtains where effects of the unconditioned
stimulus to the model are found, whereas
13
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VICARIOUS INSTIGATION
Table 3
Experimental Contrasts and Theoretical Evidence In Cerred
Study/findings
Theoretical evidence
Studies with unconfounded events
(indicators or instructions)
Craig & Lowery (1969)
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
3 > 4a
Bernal & Berger (1976)
1 < 3b
Pro Bandura
1> 4
Pro Aronfreed
3> 4
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Hygge & Ohman (1976b)
1 > 4c
Pro Aronfreed, Hygge
Yamaguchi et al. (1978)
1 <3 d
1 vs. 3 (NSD)
Vaughan & Lanzetta
(1980; Exp. I)
3 > 4c
Vaughan & Lanzetta
(1980; Exp. II)
3>4 •
Equiv. Bandura
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Studies confounding indicated events and instructions
Berger (1962; Exp. I)
2 < 3f
Berger (1962; Exp. II)
1 < 3B
1 vs. 4 (NSD)
2 < 3s
2>4 s
3>4
s
Berger (1962; Exp. III)
2<3
Craig & Weinstein (1965)
1 vs. 4 (NSD)
Pro Aronfreed
Pro Bandura
Con Aronfreed
Pro Aronfreed
Pro Bandura, con
Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Pro Aronfreed
Con Aronfreed
Note. NSD = no significant difference; Equiv.
Study/findings
Theoretical evidence
Studies confounding indicated events and instructions
(continued)
DiLollo & Berger (1965)
1 vs. 2 (NSD) h
1< 3
1 vs. 4 (NSD)
2 < 3
2 vs. 4 (NSD) h
3 > 4b
Baron (1970a)
1 <3 i
1 vs. 3 (NSD) i
Baron (1970b)
1 < 3iJ
Kravetz (1970)
1 vs. 2 (NSD)
1 vs. 3 (NSD)
2 < 3
Kravetz (1974)
1 vs. 2 (NSD) h
1 vs. 3 (NSD)
2 vs. 3 (NSD)
Hygge (1976b)
3 > 4k
Hygge & Ohman (1976a)
1 vs. 4 (NSD)
Hygge (1978)
3> 4
Hygge & Ohman (1978)
3 > 4'
3 vs. 4 (NSD) 1
Vaughan & Lanzetta
(1981)
3 > 4m
Hygge & Dimberg (1982)
3 > 4f
None
Pro Bandura
Con Aronfreed
Pro Aronfreed
Con Bandura, pro
Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura
Pro Bandura
None
Con Bandura
Pro Aronfreed
None
Con Bandura
Con Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Con Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
Equiv. Bandura, Aronfreed
equivocal finding.
" F o r USm, contrast was between subjects in one group that was instructed there was a USm, and a second group that
was instructed there was no US,~; neither group saw an actual US or indicator of US delivery. Both groups saw
URm. b Significant for instigation only; no significant difference for conditioning, c Instructions about USm but no
indicated USm; no URm, either instructed or indicated, d Significant for one dependent measure (pulse amplitude);
no significant difference for second dependent measure (heart rate change). • In differential conditioning~ observers
were instructed that one conditioned stimulus was followed by USm. There was no indication of USm delivery. All
observers saw URm. Conditioning effects significant for skin conductance response in first of three intervals (in long
interstimulus interval conditioning procedure) only; not significant for electromyographic level, f Significant for test
trials only; no significant difference for adaptation and conditioning trials, s Significant for conditioning trials only;
no significant difference for adaptation and test trials, hNonsignificant finding inferred; data were not directly reported, i Contrast 1 vs. 3 confounded because groups under the two conditions i'eceived different instructions about
USm. Effects could be due t o US m instructions, indicated URm, or both. One experimental group was in Condition
I (US~ + URm), whereas two groups were in Condition 3 (USm + URm). Contrast 1 vs. 3 was significant for only
one group. J Presence of UR~ (Condition 3) appeared to decrease observer's conditionability relative to subjects in
Condition 1 (USm + no URm) only if observer's task was independent of US~ delivery, k Significant differential
conditioning only for groups who were instructed that model's response to the purported US was strong (rather than
weak), l Significant conditioning for first interval anticipatory responses; not significant for second interval anticipatory
responses, m Significant differential conditioning (Contrast 3 vs. 4) reported for all observers, but effect due primarily
to data for one group that was instructed to amplify their facial responses to the model's pain display.
14
GINA G R E E N A N D J. GRAYSON OSBORNE
effects of the unconditioned response of the
model are precluded within the same study.
Either of two outcomes--Contrast 1 versus 2
where 1 > 2 or Contrast 1 versus 4 where
1 > 4--accomplishes both requirements and
lends unequivocal support to this theory. An
outcome of Contrast 2 versus 3 where 2 < 3
combined with nonsignificant results from
either Contrast 1 versus 3 or Contrast 2
versus 4 in the same study would also be
evidence in favor of Aronfreed's theory. None
of the studies in the literature reported an
outcome o f Contrast 1 versus 2 where 1 > 2,
but Bernal and Berger (1976) reported a
significant outcome o f Contrast 1 versus 4
where 1 > 4. Notably, this was one of only
two studies that did not confound either the
unconditioned stimulus to the model or the
unconditioned response o f the model with
instructions. Hygge and Ohman (1976b) also
reported an outcome of Contrast 1 versus 4
where 1 > 4, but in their study presence/
absence of the unconditioned stimulus to the
model was manipulated via instructions alone.
Their results support Hygge's (1976a) theory,
but are also qualified support for Aronfreed's
theory, because information about the unconditioned stimulus to the model produced
vicarious instigation.
Four studies (Berger, 1962, Exp. II; Craig
& Weinstein, 1965; DiLollo & Berger, 1965;
Hygge & Ohman, 1976a) reported no significant difference from Contrast I versus 4,
disconfirming Aronfreed's hypothesis that the
unconditioned stimulus to the model is the
effective stimulus. Two other studies that
contained instructional confounds obtained
results that suggest effects of the unconditioned stimulus to the model in the absence
of effects due to the unconditioned response
of the model: DiLollo and Berger (1965)
reported an outcome of Contrast 2 versus 3
where 2 < 3 with a finding of no significant
difference from Contrast 2 versus 4; and
Kravetz (1970) found an outcome of Contrast
2 versus 3 where 2 < 3 and no significant
difference from Contrast 1 versus 3.
Unconditioned emotional response of the
model. Several studies reported results of
Contrast 3 versus 4 (Berger, 1962, Exp. II;
Bernal & Berger, 1976; Craig & Lowery,
1969; DiLollo & Berger, 1965; Hygge, 1976b,
1978; Hygge & Dimberg, 1982; Hygge &
Ohman, 1978; Vaughan & Lanzetta, 1980,
1981). Not surprisingly, all reported statistically significant differences between the two
conditions on at least one dependent measure,
with more instigation occurring for Condition
3 than for Condition 4 regardless of whether
events were indicated, instructed, or any
combination thereof. Such results provide
only partial support for the two theories that
stress a relatively more important role for
either single element in the vicarious instigation situation, the unconditioned stimulus
to the model (Aronfreed) or the unconditioned
response of the model (Bandura). In addition,
they do not unequivocally support Berger's
contention that both events are necessary to
the observer's inference about the model's
unconditioned emotional response, because
Contrast 3 versus 4 alone does not permit
comparison of effects of the presence of both
events with effects attributable to either event
alone.
Stronger evidence for Berger's position
comes from studies that find no or minimal
effects attributable to either the unconditioned
stimulus to the model or unconditioned response of the model alone and significant
instigation when both are present. Only two
studies (Berger, 1962, Exp. II; DiLollo &
Berger, 1965) reported results of experimental
contrasts that met these requirements. Berger
(1962, Exp. II) found no significant difference
from Contrast 1 versus 4 (suggesting no effect
of the unconditioned stimulus to the model
alone), and from Contrasts 1 versus 3 and 2
versus 3 found outcomes where 1 < 3 and
2 < 3, suggesting relatively small effects of
the unconditioned stimulus to the model and
the unconditioned response of the model,
respectively. These results, in combination
with a significant difference from Contrast 3
versus 4 where the outcome was 3 > 4, imply
greater instigation to the joint occurrence of
the unconditioned stimulus to the model and
the unconditioned response of the model
than to the occurrence of either event alone.
DiLollo and Berger (1965) reported findings
identical to Berger's (1962, Exp. II), with
additional evidence against effects of the unconditioned response of the model alone inferred from their finding of nonsignificance
from Contrast 2 versus 4, and a similar
finding from Contrast 1 versus 2 that sug-
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VICARIOUS INSTIGATION
gested that neither the unconditioned stimulus
to the model nor the unconditioned response
of the model alone produced instigation.
Bernal and Berger (1976) reported an outcome
of Contrast 1 versus 3 where 1 < 3 and an
outcome of Contrast 3 versus 4 where 3 > 4,
indicating greater instigation when both unconditioned stimulus to the model and unconditioned response of the model were present than when only an unconditioned stimulus
to the model was present and both events
were absent. However, they also reported an
outcome of Contrast 1 versus 4 where 1 > 4,
a finding that suggests significant effects accruing to the unconditioned stimulus to the
model alone and detracts from this study's
support for Berger's theory.
Information as the unconditioned stimulus
to the observer. As alluded to previously, the
only study attempting to examine information
as the sole necessary condition for vicarious
instigation is Hygge and Ohman (1976b). In
this study there were neither indicators of an
unconditioned stimulus nor responses of a
model. The only event was instructions about
the unconditioned stimulus to the model.
They reported an outcome of Contrast 1
versus 4 in which 1 > 4, arguing that the
instructions contributed information and were
sufficient to produce vicarious instigation.
Summary of Evidence
The foregoing analysis was drawn from a
truncated sample of the vicarious instigation
literature, because only 21 of 30 studies contrasted experimental conditions; the remainder did not examine necessary conditions. O f
the remaining studies, five manipulated subjects' state in some way (e.g., arousal level)
prior to having them observe an aversively
stimulated model (e.g., Bandura & Rosenthal,
1966), whereas the others compared subjects
who differed on some other dimension (e.g.,
sociopaths vs. nonsociopaths; Aniskiewicz,
1979; Sutker, 1970).
From Table 3, it may be inferred that the
available data do not provide unequivocal
support for any single theory, although the
sample of studies that made the contrasts
necessary to test Berger's and Hygge's theories
is insufficient for drawing any conclusions.
Further, much of the existing evidence comes
15
from studies that confounded the putative
instigating events with instructions about
them. Where such confounding occurs, interpretation is difficult, especially when the unconditioned stimulus to the model, the unconditioned response of the model, and instructions covary. In such cases it is impossible
to determine whether reported effects are
attributable to the actual occurrence of an
unconditioned stimulus of the model or unconditioned response of the model, instructions, or both. The single study that used
indicated events without instructions and
conducted multiple experimental contrasts
(Bernal & Berger, 1976) found significant
instigation to the unconditioned stimulus to
the model alone, the unconditioned response
of the model alone, and both events together.
One study finding effects due to instructions
about the unconditioned stimulus to the
model (Hygge & Ohman, 1976b) supported
Hygge's theory. Several studies contained instructions about the unconditioned stimulus
to the model with no other indication of an
unconditioned stimulus to the model, and an
indicated unconditioned response of the
model unconfounded by instructions; or confounded instructions and the unconditioned
stimulus to the model, whereas the unconditioned response to the model was only instructed (no overt model response). However,
all of those studies reported only outcomes
of Contrast 3 versus 4 so they did not help
determine which of the two contributed more
to the obtained instigation effects.
Conclusions
No single theory of vicarious instigation is
supported unequivocally by the available data.
With regard to Bandura's and Aronfreed's
theories, the single study that contained multiple contrasts and no instructional confounds
(Bernal & Berger, 1976) obtained one finding
in weak support of Bandura's theory and one
finding unequivocally favoring Aronfreed's
position. The single study that could make
unconfounded comparisons to determine effects of instructions (Hygge & Ohman, 1976b)
reported results of only one experimental
contrast, which provides the only support in
the literature for Hygge's (1976a) theory. Evidence related to Berger's theory comes only
16
GINA GREEN AND J. GRAYSON OSBORNE
from studies containing multiple contrasts
(i.e., Berger, 1962, E x p . II; B e r n a l & Berger,
1976; D i L o l l o & Berger, 1965), a n d t h o s e
results a r e m i x e d .
T h e effects r e p o r t e d in t h i s l i t e r a t u r e a r e
d u e t o a n y o n e o f several c o n d i t i o n s : a n
u n c o n d i t i o n e d s t i m u l u s to t h e m o d e l , a n
u n c o n d i t i o n e d r e s p o n s e o f t h e m o d e l , o r ins t r u c t i o n s a b o u t either. It is n o t p o s s i b l e t o
d e t e r m i n e w h i c h is m o r e i m p o r t a n t . G i v e n
the small portion of the literature that successfully isolates t h e effective u n c o n d i t i o n e d
s t i m u l u s in v i c a r i o u s i n s t i g a t i o n a n d t h e
equivocal nature of the findings regarding
t h a t effective u n c o n d i t i o n e d s t i m u l u s , o b s e r vational learning theory garners only weak
support from the existing empirical evidence
for t h e v i c a r i o u s i n s t i g a t i o n c o n s t r u c t .
References
Allport, E H. (1924). Socialpsychology. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The historical background of
modern social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
3-56). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Aniskiewicz, A. S. (1979). Autonomic components of
vicarious conditioning and psychopathy. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 35, 60-67.
Aronfreed, J. (1969). The concept of internalization. In
D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory
and research (pp. 263-323). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bandura, A. (1965). Vicarious processes: A case of notrial learning. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-55). New
York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bandura, A. (197 l a). Analysis of modeling processes. In
A. Bandura (Ed.), Psychological modeling: Conflicting
theories (pp. 1-62). New York: Aldine-Atherton.
Bandura, A. ( 1971 b). Vicarious and self-reinforcement
processes. In R. Glarer (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement (pp. 228-278). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. 0977). Social learning theory. Englewood
Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Rosenthal, T. L. (1966). Vicarious classical
conditioning as a function of arousal level. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 354-362.
Baron, R. A. (1970a). Effects of magnitude of model's
apparent pain on observer reaction time. Psychonomic
Science, 20, 229-230.
Baron, R. A. (1970b). Magnitude of model's apparent
pain and ability to aid the model as determinants of
observer reaction time. PsychonomicScience, 21, 196197.
Berger, S. M. (1962). Conditioning through vicarious
instigation. Psychological Review, 69, 450-466.
Berger, S. M., & Hadley, S. W. (1975). Some effects of a
model's performance on an observer's electromyographic activity. American Journal of Ps3~'hology, 88,
263-276.
Bernal, G., & Berger, S. M. (1976). Vicarious eyelid
conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 62-68.
Brown, I. (1974). Effects of perceived similarity on
vicarious emotional conditioning. Behavior Research
and Therapy, 12. 156-173.
Craig, K. (1968). Physiological arousal as a function of
imagined, vicarious, and direct stress experiences.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 513-520.
Craig, K. D., & Lowery, H. J. (1969). Heart-rate components of conditioned vicarious autonomic responses.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 381387.
Craig, K. D., & Weinstein, M. S. (1965). Conditioning
vicarious affective arousal. Psychological Reports, 17,
955-963.
DiLollo, V., & Berger, S. M. (1965). Effects of apparent
pain in others on observer's reaction time. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 573-575.
Geer, J., & Jarmecky, L. (1973). The effect of being
responsible for reducing another's pain on subjects'
response and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 26, 232-237.
Gewirtz, J. L. (1971). The roles of overt responding and
extrinsic reinforcement in "self-" and "vicarious reinforcement" phenomena and in "observational learning"
and imitation. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nature of
reinforcement (pp. 279-309). New York: Academic
Press.
Gormezano, I., & Kehoe, E. J. (1975). Classical conditioning: Some methodological-conceptual issues. In
W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive
processes (Vol. 2, pp. 143-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hygge, S. (1976a). Emotional and electrodermal reactions
to the suffering of another: Vicarious instigation and
vicarious classical conditioning. (Studia Psycbologica
Upsaliensia 2). Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis.
Hygge, S. (1976b). Information about the model's unconditioned stimulus and response in vicarious classical
conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33. 764-771.
Hygge, S. (1978). The observer's acquaintance with the
model's stimulus in vicarious classical conditioning.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19, 231-239.
Hygge, S., & Dimberg, U. (1982). The differentiation
between vicarious instigation and classical conditioning
of electrodermal responses. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Hygge, S., & Ohman, A. (1976a). Conditioning of dectrodermal responses through vicarious instigation and
through perceived threat to a performer. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 17, 65-72.
Hygge, S., & Ohman, A. (1976b). The relation of vicarious
to direct instigation and conditioning of electrodermal
responses. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17,
217-222.
Hygge, S., & Ohman, A. (1978). Modeling processes in
the acquisition of fears: Vicarious electrodermal conditioning to fear-relevant stimuli. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36, 271-279.
Kanekar, S. (1976). Observational learning of attitudes:
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF VICARIOUS INSTIGATION
A behavioral analysis. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 6, 5-24.
Kravetz, D. E (1970). Heart rate as a minimal cue for
the occurrence of conditioned vicarious autonomic
responses. Psychonomic Science, 19, 90-91.
Kravetz, D. E (1974). Heart rate as a minimal cue for
the occurrence of vicarious classical conditioning.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 125131.
Krebs, D. L. (1970). Altruism: An examination of the
concept and a review of the literature. Psychological
Bulletin, 73, 258-302.
McDougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology. London: Methuen.
Ogston, K. M., & Davidson, P. O. (1972). The effects of
cognitive expectancies on vicarious conditioning. British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 126134.
Ohman, A., & Hygge, S. (1977). When apple definitions
become orange realities in banana theories: Epistemological and psychophysiological considerations in
Lindahl's analysis of vicarious instigation research.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 92-102.
Schwartz, G. E., & Shapiro, D. (1973). Social psychophysiology. In W. E Prokasy & D. C. Raskin (Eds.),
Electrodermal activity in psychological research (pp.
377-416). New York: Academic Press.
Silver, A. I., & Greco, T. S. (1975). A comparison of the
effects of vicariously instigated classical conditioning
17
and direct classical conditioning procedures. Pavlovian
Journal of Biological Sciences, I0, 216-225.
Social Science Citation Index. (1969-1983). Philadelphia:
Institute for Scientific Information.
Sutker, E B. (1970). Vicarious conditioning and sociopathy.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 76, 380-386,
Thelen, M. H., & Rennie,. D. L. (1972). The effect of
vicarious reinforcement on imitation: A review of the
literature. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (pp. 83-108). New York:
Academic Press.
Vaughan, K. B., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1980). Vicarious
instigation and conditioning of facial expressive and
autonomic responses to a model's expressive display
of pain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,,
38, 909-923.
Vaughan, K. B., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1981). The effect of
modification of expressive displays on vicarious emotional arousal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 16-30.
Venn, J. R., & Short, J. G. (1973). Vicarious classical
conditioning of emotional responses in nursery school
children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
28, 249-255.
Yamaguchi, S., Harano, K., & Egawa, B. 0978). Effects
of differentially modeled stimuli on vicarious autonomic
arousal. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 643-650.
Received April 25, 1984 •