Two experiments were conaucted to examine the effects of congitive variableson GSR activities.In Experiment Ⅰ,four groups of subjects(8 each),namedas HF,LF,HV,and LV,received different conditioning trials and extinctiontrials.They differed from each other according to the probabilities of shock(high or low)and the schedules of shock reinforcement(fixed interval or variableinterval).The data during both conditioning trials and extinction trials indicatedthat there was non-significant difference either between High Probability Groupand Low Probability Group,or between Fixed Interval Group and VariableInterval Group,so far as the GSR amplitude was concerned.Thus,the theoriesthat the greater the probility of quantified threat,the greater the fear response,and the more unpredictable the source of threat,the greater the experimentalanxiety were not supported.Experiment 2 was undertaken to test two assumptions derived from Ellis´theory relating implicit verbalization to emotional arousal.The 11 subjects inAgitated Group were instructed to silently read sequence of sentences designed toelicit negative effect(to increase anxiety)and the other 11 subjects in SoothedGroup,read sequence of sentences designed to elicit positive effect(to decreaseanxiety).No signigicant difference was found between these two groups.Theassumption that differernt kinds of self-verbalization serve to elicit different GSRdeflections was not supported.The experiment was also designed to investigatethe effect of sentence types(Observation,Inference and Evaluative Conclusion)on GSR activities.A 2×2 analysis of covariance of data yielded non-significantdifference between mean GSR amplitude elicted by Inference sentences andEvaluative sentences as a whole and that elicited by Observation sentences.Ellis´theory that"The anxiety response assoicated with sequence of sentences originatesnot with the observation,but with the inference,and the evaluative conclusion"needs further investigation.