Information effects on the response-reinforcer association

Pigeons were trained on a discrete-trial delayed reinforcement procedure with respect to one response key that was periodically illuminated. In some conditions, a second response key, or a tone, both previously paired with reinforcement, was interpolated in the delay-of-reinforcement interval. In comparison to a control condition with neither stimulus in the delay interval, the interpolated stimulus attenuated (blocked) the amount of responding that was maintained by the delayed reinforcement contingency. The degree of blocking was unaffected by whether the interpolated stimulus was the tone or keylight, in spite of the fact that the keylight evoked responding and the tone did not. A second study showed that the blocking effects involved the response-reinforcer association in that blocking occurred when the delayed reinforcement was response-dependent but did not occur when reinforcement was response-independent. The results thus show that response-reinforcer associations are affected by informational variables in the same manner as has been shown for stimulus-reinforcer associations. They also demonstrate that preexisting stimulus-reinforcer associations can block response-reinforcer associations, thus suggesting that both types of association depend upon the same associative process.

[1]  Signalled and unsignalled free-operant avoidance in the pigeon. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  R. Rescorla Reduction in the effectiveness of reinforcement after prior excitatory conditioning , 1970 .

[3]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[4]  R. F. Westbrook Failure to obtain positive contrast when pigeons press a bar. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  W. K. Honig,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior , 1979 .

[6]  N. Mackintosh A Theory of Attention: Variations in the Associability of Stimuli with Reinforcement , 1975 .

[7]  L. Kamin,et al.  Compound conditioned emotional response conditioning with differentially salient elements in rats. , 1974, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[8]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Pavlovian Control Of Operant Behavior: An Analysis Of Autoshaping And Its Implications For Operant Conditioning , 1977 .

[9]  H. Fowler,et al.  Signaling and affective functions of conditioned aversive stimuli in an appetitive choice discrimination: US intensity effects☆ , 1976 .

[10]  L. Kamin Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning , 1967 .

[11]  J. Staddon,et al.  The "supersitition" experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. , 1971 .

[12]  D. R. Williams,et al.  Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  Pavlovian aversive to instrumental appetitive transfer: Evidence for across-reinforcement blocking effects , 1977 .

[14]  B. Williams THE BLOCKING OF REINFORCEMENT CONTROL1 , 1975 .

[15]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  Sign-tracking : the stimulus-reinforcer relation and directed action , 1974 .

[16]  P. Holland Conditioned stimulus as a determinant of the form of the Pavlovian conditioned response. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[17]  Behavioral contrast in pigeons depends upon the operant. , 1973, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[18]  K. Spence Behavior Theory and Conditioning , 1978 .

[19]  V. Lolordo,et al.  Attention in the pigeon: differential effects of food-getting versus shock-avoidance procedures. , 1973, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.