The associative relation underlying autoshaping in the pigeon.

Fifteen pigeons were exposed to either response-independent or response-dependent schedules of water reinforcement, whereby water was injected directly into the unrestrained pigeons' mandibles. Key-contact responses were released by a lighted key correlated with water, but not by a lighted key uncorrelated with water. A negative response-reinforcer contingency suppressed autoshaped key-contact responses, resulting in responding directed away from the lighted key. In all pigeons, water injected directly into the mandibles elicited a consummatory fixed-action pattern of "mumbling" and swallowing. The lighted key correlated with water released a broader set of both appetitive and consummatory responses: approach to the lighted key, "bowing", "rooting", "mumbling", and swallowing. Key-contact responses were "rooting" and "mumbling" motions of the beak on the surface of the key. Views of autoshaping based on stimulus substitution or stimulus surrogation do not fully explain the origin of autoshaped responses not previously elicited by the reinforcer. The present findings are consonant with views of conditioning that emphasize the large degree of biological pre-organization in conditioned response patterns, and the importance of associative factors in the control of such patterns.

[1]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  P. L. Brown,et al.  Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Pavlovian Conditioning with Heat Reinforcement Produces Stimulus-Directed Pecking in Chicks , 1973, Science.

[4]  F. Barrera.  Centrifugal selection of signal-directed pecking. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  R. Rescorla,et al.  Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. , 1967, Psychological review.

[6]  E. Hilgard.  The nature of the conditioned response: I. The case for and against stimulus-substitution. , 1936 .

[7]  B. Schwartz,et al.  The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus-contingent and response-independent food presentation. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  B. Schwartz.  The role of positive conditioned reinforcement in the maintenance of keypecking which prevents delivery of primary reinforcement , 1972 .

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

[10]  K. Zener.  The significance of behavior accompanying conditioned salivary secretion for theories of the conditioned response. , 1937 .

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

[12]  E Gamzu,et al.  Classical Conditioning of a Complex Skeletal Response , 1971, Science.

[13]  W. Craig.  Observations on doves learning to drink. , 1912 .

[14]  D. R. Williams,et al.  Associative factors underlying the pigeon's key pecking in auto-shaping procedures. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  C. C. Perkins,et al.  Some variables affecting rate of key pecking during response-independent procedures (autoshaping). , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  R. W. Griffin,et al.  A note on the negative automaintenance procedure , 1973 .

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