Removed from further analysis were two participants in the difficult discrimination group. The two participants were removed because they demonstrated contingency awareness. The authors Schultz and Helmstetter define awareness in the article as “Awareness was defined as five consecutive trials in a sliding window in which UCS expectancy during the CS+ trials was rated above 75 and the UCS expectancy during CS- trials was rated below 25” (Schultz & Helmstetter, p. 497). This awareness criterion resulted in three outcomes. First outcome was that one participant in the easy discrimination group were classified as aware. Second was all of the remaining participants in the difficult discrimination group were classified as unaware. The last and third outcome included all of the participants in the 50% reinforcement group were classified as unaware. In the easy discrimination group, participants demonstrated differential expectations about the occurrence of the UCS while the difficult discrimination group did not. “SCR was analyzed by subtracting the mean of a 5-s baseline prior to the CS from the peak of the response during the CS period” (Schultz & Helmstetter, p. 498). A two-tailed paired t tests was conducted between the different CS types for each group. Results from the SCR were stated in the article as followed, “Participants in the easy discrimination group demonstrated differential SCRs, with larger amplitude responses during the CS+ than during the CS-. The difficult discrimination group also exhibited differential conditioning on the SCR measure, with larger responses on CS+ trials then on CS- trials” (Schultz & Helmstetter, p. 498). The four-trial sliding window included two CS+ trials and two CS- trials. If participants rated the CS+ over 50 and the CS- under 50 on four consecutive trials they were classified as approaching