The law of effect and CR contingent modification of the UCS

A persistent theoretical contention in the American conditioning literature is that Conditional Reflexes (CR) are reinforced through some hidden Thorndikian law of effect. In its most general form, law of effect theories hold that Conditional Reflex-Unconditional Stimulus (UCS) overlap modifies the sensory consequences of the UCS to provide the source of differential reinforcement of CRs. However, consideration of the historical development of law of effect theories reveals they have lacked testability due to the fact that the sources of reinforcement have been alleged to beintrinsically related to the occurrence and topography of CRs. Such a postulated intrinsic relationship has made it difficult to experimentally manipulate the amount of CR-correlated reinforcement, since the source of reinforcement is presumed to be under The Subject’s (S’s) control. Some experiments will be reported in which the relation between CRs and properties of the UCS are madeextrinsic and, accordingly, permit an experimental assessment of law of effect formulations.

[1]  C. L. Hull.  A functional interpretation of the conditioned reflex. , 1929 .

[2]  B. Skinner.  The concept of the reflex in the description of behavior. , 1931 .

[3]  B. Skinner.  Two Types of Conditioned Reflex and a Pseudo Type , 1935 .

[4]  Further Remarks on two Types of Conditioned Reflex , 1937 .

[5]  H. Schlosberg,et al.  The relationship between success and the laws of conditioning. , 1937 .

[6]  J. Konorski,et al.  On Two Types of Conditioned Reflex , 1937 .

[7]  B. Skinner.  Two Types of Conditioned Reflex: A Reply to Konorski and Miller , 1937 .

[8]  E. Guthrie.  Association and the law of effect. , 1940 .

[9]  T. C. Schneirla,et al.  Mechanisms in conditioning. , 1942 .

[10]  C. C. Perkins.  The stimulus conditions which follow learned responses. , 1955, Psychological review.

[11]  D. Hebb.  The distinction between classical and instrumental. , 1956, Canadian journal of psychology.

[12]  J. W. Moore,et al.  Yoked comparisons of instrumental and classical eyelid conditioning. , 1961, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  G. Kimble,et al.  Hilgard and Marquis' Conditioning and learning , 1961 .

[14]  W. Runquist,et al.  Yoked Comparisons of Classical and Avoidance Conditioning in Differential Conditioning of the Eyelid Response , 1962 .

[15]  R. Church,et al.  SYSTEMATIC EFFECT OF RANDOM ERROR IN THE YOKED CONTROL DESIGN. , 1964, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  Gregory A. Kimble,et al.  Categories of Learning and the Problem of Definition: COMMENTS ON PROFESSOR GRANT'S PAPER , 1964 .

[17]  J. Konorski.  Integrative activity of the brain : an interdisciplinary approach , 1967 .

[18]  C. C. Perkins.  An analysis of the concept of reinforcement. , 1968, Psychological review.