Abstract
Studies of food aversion learning have been widely interpreted as yielding evidence for selectivity in the associability of cues and consequences. On the one hand, taste cues were easily conditioned to interoceptive consequences (e.g. “illness”), but only with difficulty to exteroceptive consequences (e.g. shock). On the other hand, audiovisual stimuli were easily conditioned to shock, but only with difficulty to illness (Revusky and Garcia, 1970). Sullivan (1984) has emphasized that cue location and temporality have been important uncontrolled variables in many food-aversion studies and has argued that when these factors are taken into account, the supposed selectivity related to sensory modality is lost. Thus, Sullivan (1984) argues that shocks, like “illness”, are readily associated with tastes provided that the tastes are intrinsic attributes of the substances ingested.
Sullivan's important article may have demonstrated significant weaknesses in the evidence for specific associations of exteroceptive cues with shock rather than with “illness”, and this point will not be considered further. However, there are two aspects of Sullivan's case that cannot be substantiated. Firstly, the attempt to demonstrate that taste cues are as readily associated with shock as they are with “illness” is unconvincing. Secondly, unjustified assumptions are made about the nature of the unconditioned stimulus in conditioning with interoceptive consequences, which is presumed to be “illness” despite extensive evidence to the contrary.