本研究之目的在於探討(1)是否可以利用躲避制約學習的原理幫助受試者降低其高振福GSR；(2)是否利用電擊和警告作為厭惡刺激時，躲避學習效果有所差異；(3)是否經由電視的生理回饋要比經由自身內部的生理回饋效果為好。參加實驗的受試者共30名，係自150名大一學生中挑選其GSR基本組型大致相似者而來。他們被隨機分派至「電擊組」、「警告組」和「控制組」接受躲避學習實驗。電擊組的受試者倘可在躲避訊號消失之後30秒內將其高振福GSR降至基準線之下，而且在其後的1分30秒內不再升高到基準線之上，便可躲過電擊；否則該一嘗試便算失敗而遭受電擊。警告組的方法與電擊組同，但如果嘗試失敗則只呈現紅燈警告；得紅燈次數過多，電擊纔會出現。控制組如果嘗試失敗，既不受到電擊，也無紅燈警告。這三組的每一受試者連續參加六天的練習，每天十個嘗試，其中五個嘗試為「電視回饋」，另五個嘗試為「自身回饋」。電視回饋時，受試者可自電視上看到自己的GSR紀錄實況，自身回饋時則不然。 實驗結果顯示：(1)躲避學習組（電擊組及警告組）與控制組在抑制高振福GSR效果方面之差異並不顯著，(2)電擊組與警告組的躲避學習成績並無顯著差異存在，(3)電視回饋時的學習成績並不較自身回饋時的學習成績為好。這些觀察證據無法支持吾人可以利用躲避制約學習來降低受試者的高振福GSR的說法。故「自主性GSR是否可以用作制約學習的方法來加以抑制」的問題，仍有待繼續加以探討。

In this study an attempt was made to determine (1) whether the high-amplitude GSR can be suppressed by avoidance conditioning, (2) whether electric shock and red-light warning used as aversive stimuli are equally effective for GSR suppression, (3) whether bio-feedback via TV is more effective than bio-feedback via subject´s internal feelings. Thirty freshman students, similar in their GSR wave-patterns, were used as subjects. They were randomly assigned to Shock Group, Warning Group, and Control Group. For the Shock Group, a forearm shock regularly followed a warning signal by two minutes, unless the subjects can intentionally suppress their GSR amplitude to the degree that it is below the base line, within 30 seconds after the termination of the warning signal, and keep it below the line within the remaining 90 seconds. For the Warning Group, the procedure was the same, except that red-light instead of electric shock was used asaversive stimulus. For the Control Group, neither the electric shock nor the red-light warning was used, even if the subjects failed in their avoidance trials. Every subject in the three groups attended the experiment for six consecutive days, receiving 10 avoidance trials each day. In 5 of the 10 trials, the subjects were provided with visual feedbacks of their own GSR record through closed-circuit TV, and in the remaining 5 trials no visual feedbacks were available. The results of this study indicated: (1) that the declining time of the Avoidance Conditioning Group (Shock and Warning combined) was not significantly different from that of the Control Group, (2) that the declining time of the Shock Group was not significantly different from that of the Warning Group, and (3) that the declining time of the TV-feedback Group was not significantly shorter than that of the Self-feedback Group. These results did not seem to support the hypothesis that the autonomic GSRs can be intentionally supressed by avoidance conditioning.