Article

Appetitive–Aversive Interactions: Superconditioning of Fear by an Appetitive CS

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

Four groups of rats received conditioned suppression training in which a tone and light compound was reinforced with shock. If the light had been previously paired with free food, enhanced fear conditioning accrued to the tone during compound training relative to control groups pre-exposed to the light alone, the light semi-randomly associated with food, or the light unpaired with food. The second experiment replicated the difference in aversive conditioning for the groups receiving the light either paired or unpaired with food. The results are discussed in terms of the functional similarity of a conditioned excitor for food and a conditioned inhibitor for shock.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... Just this result has been obtained. Dickinson (1977) exposed one group of rats to pairings of a noise and an attractive US (food pellets) and a second group to semirandom presentations of the noise and the food US. Then both groups were exposed to pairings of a light-noise compound and aversive footshock and tested for fear of the light (suppression of food-reinforced lever pressing). ...
... Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of an excitatory appetitive CS on acquisition and extinction of conditioned fear. The aim of Experiment 1 was to confirm that an appetitive excitor [a CS which signaled an attractive US (sucrose)] enhanced fear conditioning (measured by freezing) to its novel partner in a shocked compound (Dickinson 1977). Experiment 2 examined whether the appetitive excitor blocks extinction of a fear CS across nonshocked presentations of the compound. ...
... The design is shown in Table 1. The expectation was that X would elicit more freezing when shocked in a compound with the CS that had been paired with sucrose (A) than with the CS (B) presented alone (Dickinson 1977). ...
Article
Full-text available
Four experiments used between- and within-subject designs to examine appetitive-aversive interactions in rats. Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of an excitatory appetitive conditioned stimulus (CS) on acquisition and extinction of conditioned fear. In Experiment 1, a CS shocked in a compound with an appetitive excitor (i.e., a stimulus previously paired with sucrose) underwent greater fear conditioning than a CS shocked in a compound with a neutral stimulus. Conversely, in Experiment 2, a CS extinguished in a compound with an appetitive excitor underwent less extinction than a CS extinguished in a compound with a neutral stimulus. Experiments 3 and 4 compared the amount of fear conditioning to an appetitive excitor and a familiar but neutral target CS when the compound of these stimuli was paired with shock. In each experiment, more fear accrued to the appetitive excitor than to the neutral CS. These results show that an appetitive excitor influences acquisition and extinction of conditioned fear to a neutral CS and itself undergoes a greater associative change than the neutral CS across compound conditioning. They are discussed with respect to the role of motivational information in regulating an associative change in appetitive-aversive interactions.
... The underlying motivational states of reinforcer interaction were also investigated using stimulus preexposure or preconditioning with one reinforcer. Fear conditioning was greatly enhanced if the CS was previously paired with food (Dickinson, 1977). ...
... Magoon and Critchfield, 2008;Morrison and Salzman, 2009) as most previous experiments measured the effect of one reinforcer on the previously established conditioned response (CR) by the other reinforcer. Previous work had studied excitatory or inhibitory interactions between sequential reward-and punishment-driven learning processes (Dickinson, 1976(Dickinson, , 1977Dickinson and Mackintosh, 1978), concurrent schedules of reward and punishment without conditioned stimuli (Kelleher and Cook, 1959;Olds and Olds, 1962), combinations with secondary reinforcers associated with the opposite valence (Morris, 1975;Baron et al., 1977), and non-contingent schedules of aversive and appetitive reinforcers (Stein, 1965;Margules and Stein, 1968;Carder, 1970;Castro-Alamancos and Borrell, 1992). The design of the present set of experiments allowed us to demonstrate an equivalence of reward and relief from punishment in the sense of two forces acting towards a convergent effect. ...
Article
Full-text available
Learned changes in behavior can be elicited by either appetitive or aversive reinforcers. It is, however, not clear whether the two types of motivation, (approaching appetitive stimuli and avoiding aversive stimuli) drive learning in the same or different ways, nor is their interaction understood in situations where the two types are combined in a single experiment. To investigate this question we have developed a novel learning paradigm for Mongolian gerbils, which not only allows rewards and punishments to be presented in isolation or in combination with each other, but also can use these opposite reinforcers to drive the same learned behavior. Specifically, we studied learning of tone-conditioned hurdle crossing in a shuttle box driven by either an appetitive reinforcer (brain stimulation reward) or an aversive reinforcer (electrical footshock), or by a combination of both. Combination of the two reinforcers potentiated speed of acquisition, led to maximum possible performance, and delayed extinction as compared to either reinforcer alone. Additional experiments, using partial reinforcement protocols and experiments in which one of the reinforcers was omitted after the animals had been previously trained with the combination of both reinforcers, indicated that appetitive and aversive reinforcers operated together but acted in different ways: in this particular experimental context, punishment appeared to be more effective for initial acquisition and reward more effective to maintain a high level of conditioned responses (CRs). The results imply that learning mechanisms in problem solving were maximally effective when the initial punishment of mistakes was combined with the subsequent rewarding of correct performance.
... CS+ for food. Dickinson found "superconditioning" of aversive CS-in addition to appetitive CS+ (e.g., Dickinson, 1977;Dickinson & Pearce, 1977), which can be interpreted as functional similarity between approach and relief. In superconditioning studies, known effects of appetitive CS+ on instrumental behavior are enhanced by aversive CS-(or vice versa), which is interpreted as functional similarity of the CS+ and CS-of the opposite motivational quality. ...
... Second, it is unclear how the present findings relate to relief effects on instrumental behaviors. The present reasoning does not explain how distance orientation could have caused the reduction of aversive responses or the increase of appetitive responses (e.g., Dickinson, 1977;Dickinson & Pearce, 1977). One possibility is that in these experiments, the positive affect of relief not only influenced the impulsive distance orientation, but also led to the activation of approach goals. ...
Article
Full-text available
The thesis deals with the question which motivation direction—approach or avoidance—is connected to the emotion relief—a positive, low-arousal emotion, which is caused by an expected or nonexpected, motive-consistent change for the better, thus caused by the absence of an aversive stimulus. Based on the idea of postulating different levels of approach avoidance motivation, the Reflective-Impulsive Model of Behavior (RIM, Strack & Deutsch, 2004) is applied to relief and approach avoidance. The RIM differentiates between an impulsive and a reflective system of information processing, with both systems working in relative independence from each other. Two central variables moderate the relation between relief and approach avoidance. The first is the psychological system in which approach avoidance is processed and assessed. Two levels of approach avoidance are distinguished: an impulsive distance orientation (distance change in relation to specific stimuli) and a reflective goal orientation (attainment of positive versus avoidance of negative end states). The second is the psychological system in which relief developed: In the impulsive system, relief develops as the affect that is conditioned to the absence of negative states; in the reflective system, relief develops as a result of goal-oriented behaviour of controlling or preventing of negative stimulation. The thesis looks at both moderators (level of approach avoidance and psychological system of development of relief) at once. The central prediction for the impulsive distance orientation is: Relief leads to an approach distance orientation (distance reduction), independent from the system in which relief develops. The central prediction for the reflective goal orientation is: Relief leads to an avoidance goal orientation (control of negative end states). This latter prediction is only made for the case when relief was caused by (develops in) the reflective system, that is by one’s own, goal-directed behaviour; it is further necessary for an avoidance goal orientation that the relief state cannot certainly reached, instead there always has to uncertainty in the control of negative states. The methodology in the thesis is based on studies of aversive conditioning. In most studies, a differentiation paradigm is applied. The impulsive relief is operationalized via a classically conditioned relief (aversive CS-), whereas the reflective relief is operationalized via an active avoidance paradigm which ensures the methodological comparability of “reflective relief” to “impulsive relief”. The predictions are as follows: Prediction A: Relief will elicit positive affective valence and an approach distance orientation. This should be true for both relief that is caused by the impulsive system and for relief that is caused by the reflective system (Experiments 2-3). Prediction B: More positive valence of relief—caused by a larger change of affective states—will elicit a stronger approach distance orientation (Experiment 4). Prediction C: Relief caused by the impulsive system will not elicit a specific goal orientation (Experiment 5). Prediction D: Uncertain self-induced relief—caused by the reflective system—will elicit an avoidance goal orientation (Experiments 6-7). In addition, Experiment 1 validated the conditioning paradigm used for the elicitation of relief. The experiments in the thesis support all predictions made in the theoretical part. The work has implications for the assumptions made in the RIM (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). In the impulsive system, the affective valence determines approach avoidance orientation (e.g., R. Neumann & Strack, 2000), the reflective goal not playing an important role. Relief elicits an approach orientation in the impulsive system. In the reflective system, the active goal is decisive for the approach avoidance orientation. Uncertain self-caused relief elicits an avoidance goal orientation in the reflective system. The studies of the thesis thus support and validate the assumptions made in the RIM (Strack & Deutsch, 2004) in the specific field of motivational direction. Die Arbeit behandelt die Frage, mit welcher motivationalen Richtung, Annäherung oder Vermeidung, die Emotion Erleichterung verbunden ist - Erleichterung ist dabei definiert als positive Emotion niedriger Erregung, die durch eine erwartete oder unerwartete motiv-konsistente Veränderung zum Besseren, also durch die Abwesendheit aversiver Stimulation, verursacht wird. Basierend auf der in der Literatur vertretenen Idee, mehrere Ebenen der Annäherungs- Vermeidungs-Motivation zu postulieren, wird das Reflektiv-Impulsiv Modell menschlichen Verhaltens (RIM, Strack & Deutsch, 2004) auf die Erleichterung und Annäherung-Vermeidung angewendet. Im RIM wird zwischen einem impulsiven und einem reflektiven System der Informationsverarbeitung unterschieden, beide Systeme arbeiten dabei relativ unabhängig voneinander. Zwei zentrale Variablen moderieren danach den Zusammenhang zwischen Erleichterung und Annäherungs-Vermeidung. Der erste Moderator ist das psychologische System, in dem Annäherung-Vermeidung verarbeitet und gemessen wird. Hierzu werden zwei Ebenen von Annäherung-Vermeidung unterschieden: eine impulsive Distanzveränderungsorientierung (Distanzveränderung bezüglich spezifischen Reizes) und eine reflektive Zielorientierung (Erreichung positiver oder Vermeidung negativer Endzustände). Der zweite Moderator ist das psychologische System, in dem die Erleichterung entsteht: Im impulsiven System entsteht Erleichterung als an die Abwesenheit negativer Zustände konditionierter Affekt; im reflektiven System entsteht Erleichterung als Resultat zielgesteuerten Verhaltens bei der Kontrolle oder Verhinderung einer negativen Stimulation. Die Arbeit betrachtet dabei beide Moderatoren (Ebene der Annäherung-Vermeidung und Entstehungssystem der Erleichterung) gleichzeitig. Für die impulsive Distanzorientierung werden daraus die folgenden zentralen Vorhersagen abgeleitet: Erleichterung löst eine Annäherungs-Distanzorientierung (Distanzverringerung) aus, unabhängig davon, ob Erleichterung im impulsiven oder im reflektiven System entsteht. Für die reflektive Zielorientierung wird abgeleitet: Erleichterung löst eine Vermeidungs-Zielorientierung (Vermeidung negativer Endzustände) aus. Diese letzte Vorhersage gilt allerdings nur dann, wenn die Erleichterung im reflektiven System entsteht, also durch eigenes, zielgeleitetes Verhalten entsteht; außerdem ist es für eine Vermeidungs-Zielorientierung nötig, dass die Erleichterung nicht sicher erreicht werden kann, sondern immer ein Anteil Unsicherheit bei der Vermeidung negativer Zustände bestehen bleibt. Die in der Arbeit verwendete Methodik basiert auf Studien zur aversiven Konditionierung. In der Arbeit wird mehrheitlich ein Differenzierungsparadigma gewählt. Die im impulsiven System entstehende Erleichterung wird dabei mit einer klassischen Konditionierung hergestellt (als aversiver CS-), die im reflektiven System entstehende Erleichterung wird mit einem aktiven Vermeidungs-Paradigma hergestellt, das die methodische Vergleichbarkeit der „reflektiven Erleichterung“ mit der „impulsiven Erleichterung“ sicherstellt. Die Vorhersagen sind wie folgt: Vorhersage A: Sowohl impulsive als auch reflektive Erleichterung löst eine positive affektive Valenz und eine impulsive Annäherungs-Distanzorientierung aus (Experimente 2-3). Vorhersage B: Die positivere Valenz von Erleichterung, die durch eine größere affektive Veränderung verursacht wird, verstärkt die Annäherungs-Distanzorientierung (Experiment 4). Vorhersage C: Impulsive Erleichterung beeinflusst die Zielorientierung nicht (Experiment 5). Vorhersage D: Unsichere reflektive Erleichterung löst eine Vermeidungs-Zielorientierung aus (Experimente 6-7). Zusätzlich validiert Experiment 1 das Konditionierungsparadigma, das für die Erzeugung der Erleichterung benutzt wird. Die vorliegenden Experimente unterstützen alle im Theoretischen Teil gemachten Vorhersagen. Die vorliegende Arbeit hat Implikationen für die Annahmen über das impulsive System sowie das reflektive System im RIM (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Im impulsiven System ist die affektive Valenz entscheidend für die Annäherungs-Vermeidungs-Orientierung (z.B. R. Neumann & Strack, 2000), das reflektive Ziel spielt dabei keine Rolle. Impulsiv löst Erleichterung eine Annäherungs-Orientierung aus. Im reflektiven System dagegen ist das aktive Ziel entscheidend für die Annäherungs-Vermeidungs-Orientierung. Reflektiv löst nur unsichere selbst bewirkte Erleichterung eine Vermeidungsorientierung aus. Die vorliegenden Studien unterstützen und validieren damit die Annahmen des RIM (Strack & Deutsch, 2004) auf dem spezifischen Feld der motivationalen Richtung.
... Experiment 2 also provided evidence for another phenomenon dependent on appetitive-aversive interaction: appetitive superconditioning. Dickinson (1977) reported that, when a novel CS was presented with a CS previously paired with food and the compound paired with shock, conditioning to the novel CS was enhanced relative to a control stimulus shocked in a compound with a CS unpaired with food. Here we found evidence that a novel CS presented in a compound with an aversive inhibitor and paired with food showed enhanced appetitive conditioning, again compared to a stimulus paired with food in a compound with CS unpaired with shock. ...
Article
Full-text available
Evidence suggests that, in Pavlovian conditioning, associations form between conditioned stimuli and multiple components of the unconditioned stimulus (US). It is common, for example, to regard USs as composed of sensory and affective components, the latter being either appetitive (e.g., food or water) or aversive (e.g., shock or illness) and, therefore, to suppose different USs of the same affective class activate a common affective system. Furthermore, evidence is growing for the suggestion that, in competitive learning situations, competition between predictive stimuli is primarily for association with the affective system activated by the US. Thus, a conditioned stimulus (CS) previously paired with one US will block conditioning to another CS when both are presented together and paired with a different US of the same affective class, a phenomenon called transreinforcer blocking. Importantly, similar effects have been reported when steps are taken to turn the pretrained CS into a conditioned inhibitor, which activates the opposing affective state to the excitor that it inhibits. Thus, an appetitive inhibitor can block conditioning to a second CS when they are presented together and paired with foot shock. Here we show that the same is true of an aversive inhibitor. In two experiments conducted in rats, we found evidence that an aversive inhibitor blocked conditioning to a second CS when presented in a compound and paired with food. Such findings demonstrate that affective processes and their opponency organize appetitive-aversive interactions and establish the valences on which they are based, consistent with incentive theories of Pavlovian conditioning.
... Specifically, when both the Pavlovian CS and the lever are present, one can measure the extent to which the presence of the aversive Pavlovian CS (e.g., tone that predicts the shock) may suppress an animal's desire to press the lever to receive a food reinforcer (Bouton and Bolles, 1980;Estes and Skinner, 1941). Notably, although some versions of this paradigm superimpose the Pavlovian conditioned aversive stimulus on an instrumentally controlled response (Blackman, 1970;Dickinson, 1976), others have noted that these conditioned suppression effects may also arise even during extinction of the aversive stimulus, similar to the aversive Pavlovian instrumental transfer paradigms discussed in the next section. This paradigm is illustrated in Fig. 3b. ...
Article
Aversive motivation plays a prominent role in driving individuals to exert cognitive control. However, the complexity of behavioral responses attributed to aversive incentives creates significant challenges for developing a clear understanding of the neural mechanisms of this motivation-control interaction. We review the animal learning, systems neuroscience, and computational literatures to highlight the importance of experimental paradigms that incorporate both motivational context manipulations and mixed motivational components (e.g., bundling of appetitive and aversive incentives). Specifically, we postulate that to understand aversive incentive effects on cognitive control allocation, a critical contextual factor is whether such incentives are associated with negative reinforcement or punishment. We further illustrate how the inclusion of mixed motivational components in experimental paradigms enables increased precision in the measurement of aversive influences on cognitive control. A sharpened experimental and theoretical focus regarding the manipulation and assessment of distinct motivational dimensions promises to advance understanding of the neural, monoaminergic, and computational mechanisms that underlie the interaction of motivation and cognitive control.
... Perhaps the offset of aversive stimulation can be viewed as a source for appetitive arousal, serving as it may do to provoke relief, and that this arousal inhibits activity in an aversive system (cf. Dickinson, 1977). If relief were mediated by the release of opioids, then naloxone given before or after exposure to the heated floor should serve to increase excitatory conditioning by preventing the inhibitory action of the appetitive system upon the aversive one. ...
Article
Full-text available
Five experiments used rats to examine the conditioned hypoalgesia induced by exposure to a heated floor. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that this hypoalgesia is mediated by non-opioid mechanisms of pain control, as evidenced by insensitivity to the opioid antagonist naloxone and by the absence of cross-tolerance with the opioid agonist morphine. Although non-opioid in nature, the acquisition of conditioned hypoalgesia was facilitated by naloxone and impaired by morphine (Experiments 3 and 4). These effects did not appear to be due to an opioid regulation of pain. (1) Pairing morphine with the heated floor attenuated acquisition in drug-tolerant rats. (2) This attenuation by morphine was removed when naloxone was given after exposure to the heated floor. (3) Conditioning was facilitated when naloxone was given after exposure to the heated floor (Experiment 5). The results were discussed in terms of an opioid regulation of (a) surprise, (b) arousal of an aversive motivational system, and (c) the affective component of pain.
... There is some precedent in the literature for the view that opposing associative treatments in appetitive and aversive motivational systems are functionally similar (e.g., Dickinson & Dearing, 1979;Rescorla, 1971). For instance, an aversive CS undergoing extinction and an appetitive CS undergoing acquisition may both similarly engage an appetitive process (Dickinson, 1977), whereas an appetitive CS undergoing extinction and an aversive CS undergoing acquisition may both similarly engage an aversive process (Dickinson & Dearing, 1979). In the case of aversive learning, extinction may diminish fear conditioned responses by engaging this appetitive process, which has the effect of inhibiting fear. ...
Article
Full-text available
Previous research has reported a role for the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the extinction and renewal of conditioned fear. Here, the authors examine whether GABA is involved in the acquisition, extinction, renewal, spontaneous recovery, and latent inhibition of appetitive conditioning. Using Long-Evans rats, systemic injection of the GABA A receptor inverse agonist FG 7142 was shown to eliminate ABA renewal (Experiment 1) and spontaneous recovery (Experiment 4) of appetitive responding by selectively reducing the recovery of extinguished magazine approach. Furthermore, treatment with FG 7142 had no effects on acquisition or single-session extinction (Experiment 3) or on the context-specific expression of latent inhibition (Experiment 2). These data suggest that ABA renewal and spontaneous recovery, but not latent inhibition or responding during acquisition and an initial extinction session, are mediated by GABAergic mechanisms in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning. They provide support for the view that renewal and spontaneous recovery share a common psychological mechanism.
... Conditioned stimuli previously associated with shock can inhibit or block the association of a conditioned stimulus paired with the omission of expected food reward (Dickinson and Dearing 1979). Fear conditioning was greatly enhanced if the CS was previously paired with food (Dickinson 1977). ...
Article
Full-text available
New behaviours in animal and man can be acquired, in principle, by either reward- or punishment-reinforced learning. But as popular wisdom maintains, learning may be most efficient if "carrot and stick" reinforcements are combined. In spite of its high theoretical, clinical and educational relevance, neither the general nature nor the detailed dynamics of the direct interaction of reward and punishment nor its dynamics during learning are understood. Midbrain dopamine system, especially the ventral tegmental area (VTA) plays a vital role in motivated behaviour. Electrical stimulation of this system has a positively reinforcing effect on behaviour. Using this feature of this widely projecting reward system, we first studied the acquisition and extinction of the tone conditioned hurdle crossing in shuttle-box. In a similar way, we studied the same learning motivated by avoidance of aversive footshock. After studying the learning driven by either positively reinforcing stimulation of the ventral tegmental area or by negatively reinforcing footshock, we integrated both reinforcers. The boosted learning observed for the combination of reward and punishment in the same session demonstrated a putatively dopamine-dependent convergent effect. Subsequently, omission procedures were employed to clarify the respective roles of appetitive and aversive reinforcers previously observed in the interaction scenario. Further clarification was achieved by comparing results from continuous reinforcement and partial reinforcement protocols. Taken together the results demonstrate that, reward and punishment operate differently during fully predicted continuous and partially predicted reinforcement conditions. The results further imply that instrumental learning mechanisms vigorously rely on dopamine signal that is associated with response. Consequently, dopamine plays discernible but important roles in both reward seeking and pain avoidance.
... Although the presentation of an inhibitory stimulus is the most common way to produce supernormal conditioning to a target CS, there are other ways to obtain the effect. For example, Dickinson (1977) found that fear conditioning to a target CS is enhanced when it is reinforced (i.e., paired with shock) in compound with a stimulus previously paired with food. An interpretation of this result is that the presence of the CS previously paired with food during compound conditioning generates an expectation of an appetitive outcome, which is violated when the shock, an aversive outcome, is presented. ...
Article
The goal of this study was to define conditions under which conditioned immunosuppression may be observed reliably. In three experiments, rats were exposed to a gustatory conditioned stimulus (CS) paired with cyclophosphamide (US), which induces immunosuppression and malaise. In Experiment 1, a single pairing of the CS with low, medium, or high doses of cyclophosphamide in separate groups produced no reliable conditioned immunosuppression even though conditioned taste aversion was observed in groups trained with high and medium doses of CY. Experiment 2 replicated the lack of effect following a single pairing of the CS with the medium dose of cyclophosphamide but demonstrated that three pairings are sufficient to induce conditioned immunosuppression. Experiment 3 demonstrated that significant immunosuppression is observable following a single CS-US pairing if the CS is presented in compound with a previously nonreinforced CS during training, an effect reminiscent of supernormal conditioning. These findings indicate that conditioned immunosuppression effects can be enhanced in magnitude through the use of certain procedural techniques.
... Specifically, when both the Pavlovian CS and the lever are present, one can measure the extent to which the presence of the aversive Pavlovian CS (e.g., tone that predicts the shock) may suppress an animal's desire to press the lever to receive a food reinforcer (Bouton & Bolles, 1980;Estes & Skinner, 1941). Notably, although some versions of this paradigm superimpose the Pavlovian conditioned aversive stimulus on an instrumentally controlled response (Blackman, 1970;Dickinson, 1976), others have noted that these conditioned suppression effects may also arise even during extinction of the aversive stimulus, similar to the aversive Pavlovian instrumental transfer paradigms discussed in the next section. This paradigm is illustrated in Figure 3b. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Aversive motivation plays a prominent role in motivating individuals to exert cognitive control. However, a significant obstacle has been the complexity of behavioral responses attributed to aversive incentives. In this review, we posit that incorporating motivational context and mixed motivation will enhance our current understanding of the neural and computational mechanisms underpinning these interactions. We highlight how delineating whether aversive incentives facilitate negative reinforcement or punishment can inform dissociable neural pathways and computational mechanisms for cognitive control allocation. Additionally, we demonstrate how including multiple bundled incentives in experimental paradigms enables precise measurement of aversive influences on cognitive control. The lateral habenula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex are featured as part of a broader neural circuit for aversive motivational value, and dopaminergic and serotonergic projections may guide dissociable strategies for cognitive control allocation. Finally, these motivational dimensions help generate normative predictions for divergent strategies for control allocation. In sum, incorporating these motivational dimensions will facilitate more sophisticated understanding of the neural, monoaminergic, and computational mechanisms of aversive motivation and cognitive control.
... More strikingly perhaps, aversive blocking is not only obtained using an aversive excitor (i.e., a CS positively predicting a shock US) but also when using an appetitive inhibitor (i.e., a CS negatively predicting a food US) (Dickinson & Dearing, 1979). Further, an aversive inhibitor and an appetitive excitor can both produce aversive super-conditioning (Dickinson, 1977). Thus, despite radical differences in their specific predictions, an excitor of one emotional state appears to be functionally equivalent to an inhibitor of the other emotional state and both appear to influence prediction error in a similar manner. ...
Article
Contemporary theories of learning emphasize the role of a prediction error signal in driving learning, but the nature of this signal remains hotly debated. Here, we used Pavlovian conditioning in rats to investigate whether primary motivational and emotional states interact to control prediction error. We initially generated cues that positively or negatively predicted an appetitive food outcome. We then assessed how these cues modulated aversive conditioning when a novel cue was paired with a foot shock. We found that a positive predictor of food enhances, whereas a negative predictor of that same food impairs, aversive conditioning. Critically, we also showed that the enhancement produced by the positive predictor is removed by reducing the value of its associated food. In contrast, the impairment triggered by the negative predictor remains insensitive to devaluation of its associated food. These findings provide compelling evidence that the motivational value attributed to a predicted food outcome can directly control appetitive-aversive interactions and, therefore, that motivational processes can modulate emotional processes to generate the final error term on which subsequent learning is based.
Article
Conditioned barpress suppression was used to examine the effects of qualitative changes in the unconditioned stimulus (US) between Phases 1 and 2 of a blocking paradigm. In Phase 1, rats received pairings of a conditioned stimulus (CS) with footshock. In Phase 2, experimental subjects received a single trial of the same CS or a different CS compounded with a second stimulus and followed either by a footshock or an ice water dunking. These two USs were equated in their potential to elicit conditioned suppression of barpressing. Less blocking of the second stimulus (i.e., unblocking) was observed in subjects that received a qualitative change in US between phases than in subjects for which the US was consistent between phases. This unblocking effect is discussed with respect to the differences between various models of conditioning and several prior successes and failures to demonstrate unblocking.
Article
Full-text available
Prior research on Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer has shown that when a CS previously associated with shock (AvCS+) is presented contingent upon a choice response to a discriminative stimulus for food reinforcement, it facilitates discrimination learning. Conversely, a response-contingent CS previously associated with the absence of shock (AvCS−) retards discrimination learning. To evaluate whether these findings reflect across-reinforcement blocking and enhancement effects, two experiments investigated the effects of appetitively conditioned stimuli on fear conditioning to a novel stimulus that was serially compounded with the appetitive CS during conditioned-emotional-response (CER) training. Although there were no differential effects of the appetitive CSs in CER acquisition, Experiment 1, using a relatively weak shock US, showed that a CS previously associated with food (ApCS+) retarded CER extinction to the novel stimulus, in evidence of enhanced fear conditioning to that stimulus. In addition, Experiment 2, using a stronger shock US, showed that a CS previously associated with the absence of food (ApCS−) facilitated CER extinction to the novel stimulus, in evidence of weaker fear conditioning to that stimulus. These results parallel traditional blocking effects and indicate not only that an ApCS+ and an ApCS− are functionally similar to AvCSs of opposite sign, but that their functional similarity is mediated by common central emotional states.
Article
Two studies using an ABA design examined the Extinction and renewal of conditioned barpress suppression. Following lights-off and foot shock pairings in Context A, rats were placed in Context B and were given either a standard counterconditioning procedure where the lights-off CS was paired with a novel food US delivered freely or a modified counterconditioning procedure where CS-US pairings only occurred if the rat earned the US by performing a required behavior during the CS. Results indicated that the modified counterconditioning procedure thwarted ABA renewal but the conventional counterconditioning procedure did not reduce ABA renewal any more than nonreinforced exposure to the CS alone. Furthermore, the response required during the modified counterconditioning procedure could be one used as a baseline response during Acquisition of fear or it could be a novel response. Implications of the results for theories of Extinction and renewal of fear are discussed.
Article
Predictions of a theory of Pavlovian motivational transfer, which incorporates principles of both the theory of reciprocal inhibition and the Rescorla-Wagner model, were tested in several Pavlovian aversive to Pavlovian appetitive transfer tasks. As predicted, the presence of a signal for an aversive event, conditioned stimulus (AV CS+), reliably suppressed performance of appetitive conditioned responses (CRs) whether imposed during acquisition or on independently established responding. Acquisition of appetitive responding to a novel CS reinforced in compound with an AV CS+, however, was enhanced (“superconditioning”). This observation suggests that the effects of a discrepancy between expectation and actual outcome on a conditioning trial are influenced by the affective value of both the expectation and the reinforcer. These transfer effects were not symmetrical for an inhibitory aversive stimulus (AV CS−). An AV CS− did not enhance appetitive responding compared to a random control condition, nor did the AV CS− reduce (i.e., block) appetitive conditioning to a novel CS when appetitive reinforcement occurred in the presence of the AV CS−. Comparison of the two shock-exposed conditions with a naive control condition suggests that previous results that were apparently consistent with inhibitory aversive enhancement and blocking of appetitive conditioning may have been due to aversive context conditioning.
Article
In Experiment 1, compared to non-reinforced presentation of a food stimulus (A → no US), the association of a food stimulus with wheel running (A → US) blocked subsequent avoidance of a distinctive flavor (X), when both the food and flavor were followed by wheel running (AX → US). Experiment 2 replicated and extended the blocking effect, demonstrating that the amount of avoidance of X after AX → wheel training depended on the correlation between A-alone trials and wheel running—the predictiveness of the A stimulus. The present study is the first to demonstrate associative blocking of conditioned taste avoidance (CTA) induced by wheel running and strongly implicates associative learning as the basis for this kind of avoidance.
Chapter
This chapter describes the main components of a reasonable theory of Pavlovian conditioning, explains why these components are necessary, and suggests ways that learning might be translated into adaptive behavior. The chapter is organized in a similar way to the learning process it seeks to describe. New proposals are introduced in a gradual incremental fashion, and an attempt is made to integrate them into a coherent theory of how associations might lead to adaptive behavior. The chapter begins with the error-correction approach, which emphasizes the importance of the US (e.g., surprise), and hybrid theories, which also consider changes in CS processing (e.g., associability). The initial emphasis is placed on the associative principles and processes derived from experiments, and moves outward towards situation-specific attributes of the CR that promote adaptation. The goal is to demonstrate how one might build a working account of Pavlovian learning from the inside out.
Article
Full-text available
Efectos Diferenciales de la Ausencia de Reforzamiento y e l Castigo en Humanos. En una preparación de aprendizaje asociativo, los participantes recibieron reforzamiento parcial (RP) con dos claves diferentes. Para una de las claves, las presentaciones no reforzadas consistieron en emparejamientos de la clave con una consecuencia neutra, mientras que estas presentaciones consistieron en emparejamientos con una consecuencia aversiva para la otra clave. Los resultados mostraron que el entrenamiento de RP produjo una fuerte respuesta ante la clave emparejada con la consecuencia neutra en los ensayos no reforzados. Sin embargo, la respuesta ante la clave emparejada con la consecuencia aversiva en los ensayos no reforzados resultó fuertemente suprimida. Los presentes resultados son problemáticos para las teorías actuales del aprendizaje (p. ej., Rescorla y Wagner, 1972), pero pueden ser explicados por teorías clásicas que incluyen mecanismos motivacionales (p. ej., Konorski, 1967), así como por un modelo recientemente desarrollado, en el cual las expectativas de consecuencias incompatibles compiten por su expresión en la conducta (i.e., Pineño & Matute, 2003).
Article
Few studies have examined the relative effectiveness of reinforcing versus aversive consequences at changing behavior in real-world environments. Real-time sensing devices makes it easier to investigate such questions, offering the potential to improve both intervention outcomes and theory. This research aims to describe the development of a real-time, operant theory-based secondhand smoke (SHS) intervention and compare the efficacy of aversive versus aversive plus reinforcement contingency systems. Indoor air particle monitors were placed in the households of 253 smokers for approximately three months. Participants were assigned to a measurement-only control group (N = 129) or one of the following groups: 1.) aversive only (AO, N = 71), with aversive audio/visual consequences triggered by the detection of elevated air particle measurements, or 2.) aversive plus reinforcement (AP, N = 53), with reinforcing consequences contingent on the absence of SHS added to the AO intervention. Residualized change ANCOVA analysis compared particle concentrations over time and across groups. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were also performed. After controlling for Baseline, Post-Baseline daily particle counts (F = 6.42, p = 0.002), % of time >15,000 counts (F = 7.72, p < 0.001), and daily particle events (F = 4.04, p = 0.02) significantly differed by study group. Nearly all control versus AO/AP pair-wise comparisons were statistically significant. No significant differences were found for AO versus AP groups. The aversive feedback system reduced SHS, but adding reinforcing consequences did not further improve outcomes. The complexity of real-world environments requires the nuances of these two contingency systems continue to be explored, with this study demonstrating that real-time sensing technology can serve as a platform for such research.
Article
We use classical conditioning of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) proboscis extension reflex with a visual (A) and an olfactory (X) conditioned stimulus in a blocking paradigm. Typically, learning about one element (X) of a compound (AX) is decreased (blocked) if the other component (A) has previously been rewarded alone. Our results show that visual pretraining did not produce blocking in honeybees: instead, forward pairings of A with a reward increased subsequent learning about X relative to a backward pairing control. This finding violates the independence assumption, which holds that elements of inter-modal compound stimuli change associative strength independently of each other. Furthermore, it is at odds with common theories of conditioning that predict blocking and assume that the elements of a compound stimulus rely on one common internal reinforcing signal. Taking the functional anatomy of the honeybee brain into account, we suggest that vision and olfaction may not rely on the same internal reinforcing signal; compound interactions might thus reflect the wiring of the honeybee nervous system and the biological significance of different sensory modalities during natural behaviour.
Article
Superconditioning is said to occur when learning an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) isfacilitated by pairing the CS with the US in the presence of a previously established conditioned inhibitor. Previous demonstrations of superconditioning have been criticized because their control conditions have allowed alternative interpretations. Using a within-subjects autoshaping procedure, the present study unambiguously demonstrated superconditioning. The results support the view that super-conditioning is the symmetric opposite of blocking.
Article
Full-text available
The interaction of opposing motivational states was measured within a design in which rats barpressed for food in one stimulus and to avoid shock in another. Tone and light discriminative stimuli (Sds) were counterbalanced over incentive conditions. Extinction eliminated responding when neither Sd was present. To minimize the influence of competing peripheral operants or reinforcer-elicited behaviors during appetitive-aversive interactions, contingency parameters were manipulated to generate similar rates and patterns of barpressing in both Sds and stimulus-compounding tests were administered in extinction. On these tests, rates in tone, light, and tone plus light (T+L) were equivalent. In contrast, when the same reinforcer (i.e., food or shock avoidance) maintained comparable training rates in tone and in light, in testing, T+L controlled double the rates of the single stimuli-strong additive summation. These results were strikingly similar to those of single-incentive experiments concerned with the contribution of excitatory and inhibitory incentive states to the results of stimulus compounding. Simultaneously presenting two Sds whose implicit stimulus-reinforcer (S-S r) contingencies were arranged to make them, respectively, conditioned appetitive and aversive exciters (present experiment) produced test results comparable to those of two Sds whose implicit S-S r contingencies were arranged to make them both conditioned inhibitors. Reciprocal antagonism between these two motive states more than neutralizes them. It appears to produce a negative (i.e., an inhibitory) motive state.
Article
Full-text available
The present study employed a Pavlovian-instrumental-transfer paradigm to investigate the role of conditioned fear in appetitive discrimination learning. Each of three Pavlovian training procedures was used to establish a conditioned fear excitor (CS+), a “neutral” CS (CSo), and a conditioned fear inhibitor (CS−). Then, the CSs were administered to rats in the three groups contingent upon the rewarded response in a difficult visual discrimination. In addition, half of each group received shock punishment for each incorrect response. Relative to CSo, CS+ facilitated performance in contrast to the usual interfering effect of conditioned suppressors; conversely, CS− retarded performance even when its reinforcing action (fear inhibition) was potentiated by punishment for the incorrect response. These results, together with other findings showing a reversed outcome when the CSs are administered for the incorrect response, indicate that Pavlovian conditioning comprises both general signaling and affective functions, the former reflecting a basic “expectancy” or nominal type of cognitive processing in the rat.
Article
Full-text available
suggests that latent inhibition (LI) research and theory may play important roles in increasing our understanding of dysfunctional attentional processes in schizophrenia / LI has also offered some insights into the weaknesses of certain aversion therapies, and it has provided a tool for circumventing some of the undesirable side-effects of other therapies, as with radiation- and chemotherapy / suggests that a convincing rationale for using LI as a preventive measure to moderate the acquisition of selected fears and phobias has been provided by laboratory studies of conditioning and LI, in both animals and humans latent inhibition and behavioral pathology (latent inhibition and schizophrenia, latent inhibition and conditioned aversion therapies increasing therapy effectiveness, decreasing undesirable side effects of some therapies, preventing fears and phobias with latent inhibition procedures) / modulating the magnitude of the latent inhibition effect (stimulus-specificity of latent inhibition, context-specificity of latent inhibition, stability of latent inhibition) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Three food-deprived Long-Evans rats were exposed to a non-discriminated shock avoidance procedure. Superimposed upon this operant avoidance baseline were periodic presentations of a conditioned stimulus that was paired with food, the unconditioned stimulus. These pairings resulted in increases in the rate of shock over that recorded when the conditioned stimulus was not present. A traditional suppression ratio failed to reveal any differential effect of the conditioned stimulus on the overall rate of avoidance responding, although all subjects showed a consistent pattern of pausing and postshock response bursts during presentations of the conditioned stimulus. When food was withheld during a final extinction phase, the conditioned stimulus ceased to occasion increases in shock rates and disruptive postshock response bursts were eliminated. An analysis of conditioned suppression procedures is proposed that stresses not only operant-Pavlovian or appetitive-aversive incompatibility, but also the manner in which the baseline schedule of reinforcement affects operant behavior changes that are elicited by the superimposed Pavlovian procedure.
Article
Using as a reference point those paradigms (punishment, CER, avoidance, and escape) which have commonly employed electric shock as an aversive stimulus, this paper reviews those studies which have attempted to assess the aversive properties of withdrawing positive reinforcement. While the evidence cited suggests that withdrawing positive reinforcement can function as an aversive event, it is pointed out that there is a need for resolving the contradictions that still exist. Several suggestions are offered which might lead to clarification of the problems inherent in this area.
Article
This chapter summarizes research from various learning situations involving reward manipulations in which frustration is typically introduced to account for the results. These researches provides empirical support for the frustration interpretation by using an escape-from-frustration response to measure independently the relative amounts of frustration present. The experiments presented in these researches indicate that the subjects learn a new response to escape from frustration-arousing stimuli. They also demonstrate that rats learn a hurdle-jump response to escape stimuli paired with nonreward or a reduced reward previously paired with a large reward. This result is obtained under various conditions and learning situations, such as following alley acquisition or direct placements on a continuous reinforcement schedule with solid food or sucrose rewards, in combination with stimuli paired with shock or with an increase in delay of reward, and following alley acquisition on a partial or varied reinforcement schedule. These experiments also demonstrate that the amount of discrimination training influences escape behavior from both S+ and S–, and that the stimuli associated with the absence of an “observing response” are more aversive than the stimuli associated with the presence of an “observing response.”
Article
EXPERIMENTS THAT SEPARATE THE EFFECTS OF DRIVE FROM THOSE OF INCENTIVE-MOTIVATIONAL (REINFORCEMENT LINKED) STIMULI INDICATE THAT, WHILE CERTAIN DRIVES CAN RAISE THE LEVEL OF GENERAL ACTIVITY AND FACILITATE THE OCCURRENCE OF PARTICULAR CONSUMMATORY RESPONSES, DRIVE FACILITATION OF INSTRUMENTAL BEHAVIOR RESULTS NOT FROM DRIVE PER SE, BUT FROM AN INCREASE IN THE EFFICACY OF INCENTIVE-MOTIVATIONAL STIMULI. OTHER STUDIES SUGGEST THAT THE MECHANISM BY WHICH INCENTIVE-MOTIVATIONAL STIMULI INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR IS NOT THE INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES OR OF ANTICIPATORY GOAL REACTIONS, BUT THE CLASSICAL CONDITIONING OF A CENTRAL STATE TO THE STIMULI. THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE INTERPRETED IN TERMS OF A MODEL OF MOTIVATIONAL EFFECTS CONSISTING OF 4 HYPOTHETICAL FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE ASSUMED TO (1) ACTIVATE CONSUMATORY ACTION SITES (DRIVE-REINFORCEMENT), (2) FACILITATE RELEVANT SENSORY INPUT (ATTENTION), (3) CREATE A CENTRAL STATE OF SOME GENERALITY (INCENTIVE-MOTIVATION), AND (4) ENHANCE MOTOR READINESS (AROUSAL). SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL ARE DISCUSSED. (4 P. REF.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
The aim of this book is to achieve a high level of synthesis regarding learning theory and behavior. The author attempts to do so by examining both research and conjecture in a broadly historical context, in addition to presenting new experimental findings not available to earlier system makers and theorists. In this way, it is believed, empirical facts and divergent theories become maximally meaningful and most significantly related. The book begins with an introductory chapter that presents a historical review and perspective of the field of learning theory. Chapter 2 examines the law of effect, conditioning, and punishment. Chapter 3 discusses two versions of two-factor learning theory. In the fourth chapter, two conceptions of secondary reinforcement are presented. Chapters 5 and 6 continue the examination of secondary reinforcement with discussions of a unifying theory and reservations and complications. The topics of Chapter 7 are a revised two-factor theory and the concept of habit, followed by Chapter 8 which comparatively examines other theories and some further evidence. Hope, fear, and field theory are the focus of Chapter 9, and Chapter 10 focuses on reinforcement gradients and temporal integration. The book closes with two chapters on unlearning, conflict, frustration, courage, generalization, discrimination, and skill. The basic argument proposed by the author is epitomized in Chapter 7. Earlier chapters provide the logical and factual background from which this argument evolves; and the five subsequent chapters amplify and apply the argument in more specific ways. Thus, the reader who wishes a quick "look" at this volume as a whole may first read the chapter indicated; but the argument will unfold most naturally and persuasively if the chapters are read in the order in which they appear. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
"The magnitude of [anxiety] is measured by its effect upon… the rate with which [hungry] rats pressed a lever under periodic reinforcement with food. Repeated presentations of a tone terminated by an electric shock produced a state of anxiety in response to the tone… . When the shock was thus preceded by a period of anxiety it produced a much more extensive disturbance in behavior than an 'unanticipated' shock… . During experimental extinction of the response to the lever the tone produced a decrease in the rate of responding, and the terminating shock was followed by a compensatory increase in rate which probably restored the original projected height of the extinction curve. The conditioned anxiety state was extinguished when the tone was presented for a prolonged period without the terminating shock. Spontaneous recovery from this extinction was nearly complete on the following day." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Examined the notion of conditioned inhibition and suggests a definition in terms of the learned ability of a stimulus to control a response tendency opposed to excitation. 2 techniques of measuring inhibition are outlined: (1) the summation procedure in which an inhibitor reduces the response that would normally be elicited by another stimulus, and (2) the retardation of acquisition procedure in which an inhibitor is retarded in the acquisition of an excitatory CR. Examples of the use of these procedures are given for a variety of UCS modalities. Several possible operations for generating conditioned inhibitors are reviewed: extinction following excitatory conditioning, discriminative conditioning, arrangement of a negative correlation between CS and a UCS, use of an extended CS-UCS interval, and presentation of a stimulus in conjunction with UCS termination. These operations suggest that conditioned inhibitors are not generated either by simple extinction procedures or by pairing a stimulus with UCS termination. By contrast, for both salivary and fear conditioning the other procedures do appear to generate inhibitors. Most of the procedures generating conditioned inhibitors can be described as arranging a negatively correlated CS and UCS. (2 p. ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
In a multiphase experiment, dogs first received discriminative, discretetrial, barrier-jumping training with two tones (SD, SΔ) in a shuttle box reinforced by either shock avoidance (Group I) or by food (Group II). Then the dogs were trained on free-operant barrier-jumping reinforced by the qualitatively opposite reinforcer—food in Group I and shock avoidance in Group II. Finally, test presentations of the tone stimuli were superimposed on the free-operant behavior. The tone SDs markedly facilitated responding in all animals. This experiment demonstrates a summation of responding maintained by shock avoidance and food reinforcement and casts doubt on explanations of conditioned suppression outcomes that appeal solely to incompatible motivational states within the organism.
Article
Three groups of dogs were first trained to avoid shock by responding during a visual signal. Second, these groups underwent appetitive Pavlovian conditioning operations in a different environment. Later when compounded with the cue for avoidance in transfer tests, a CS+ which had reliably signaled food presentations during Pavlovian conditioning produced marked decreases in rates of avoidance responding, while a CS0 which had been presented randomly with respect to food, and a CS− which had been contrasted with food, produced no effect. This class of Pavlovian conditioning → instrumental responding interaction experiments has been the subject of theoretical controversy. These results suggest that appetitive and aversive conditioned motivational states interact subtractively.
Article
Two conditioned-suppression experiments investigated the effects of prior inhibitory training of A alone upon subsequent reinforcement and nonreinforcement of an AX compound. In Experiment 1, the amount of conditioning to X as a result of reinforcement of AX was increased by previous inhibitory treatment of A and decreased by previous excitatory treatment of A. In Experiment 2, nonreinforcement of AX resulted in the conditioning of a small amount of excitation to X if A alone had a history of inhibitory conditioning. The results are related to a general model of Pavlovian conditioning.
Article
Hooded rats were given conditioned inhibition training in which the taste of saccharin alone was always followed by induced illness, but the taste of saccharin plus the odor of amyl acetate was not. In a series of three subsequent tests—summation, enhancement of conditioning, and retardation—it was demonstrated that the odor had acquired active inhibitory properties. The results paralleled those obtained with more traditionally studied stimuli and techniques and hence were found to be readily predictable from a recent model of conditioning set forth by Rescorla and Wagner (1972).
Article
The finding that Pavlovian signals for food or shock influence avoidance responding might be explained either by interaction of conditioned central mediational states or interaction of learned instrumental responses. Using three groups of dogs, the two hypotheses were pited one against the other in a three-stage transfer-of-control experiment. In the initial conditioning phase, tones were established as signals for food, shock, or neither; additionally the tones also cued a common instrumental response. Following avoidance training, the tone was tested for its influence upon avoidance. If the lone had signaled food, avoidance was suppressed; if shock, avoidance was facilitated; if neither, avoidance was unaffected. This was interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that interaction of central states mediates the transfer-of-control.
Article
Pretrained appetitive discriminative stimuli were used as warning signals in subsequent avoidance learning. In Expt 1 identical responses were required in pretraining and in avoidance learning. An appetitive S+ facilitated avoidance learning in rats in comparison to S− or a stimulus previously uncorrelated with food. In Expt 2, the type of response in pretraining and in avoidance learning was varied. Groups with homogeneous responses in the two situations replicated Expt 1 results, whereas groups with different responses in pretraining and avoidance learning failed to show an advantage when S+ served as warning; in the heterogeneous response groups, S− was as effective as S+. Inhibitory factors in the heterogeneous groups were discussed as an explanation for these results.
Article
Advances a theory of learning which wholly discards the response-reinforcement principle. It attributes learned behavior modifications to the building of central representations of contingencies between situational stimuli and incentive stimuli; certain situational stimuli are thereby turned into conditioned incentive-discriminative stimuli. It is proposed that central motivational states, generated by the joint influence of organismic-state variables and unconditioned or conditioned incentive stimuli, influence the response-eliciting potency of particular situational stimuli. The specific response form that emerges is a fresh construction created by the momentary motivational state and the spatio-temporal distribution of various distal and contact discriminative-incentive stimuli in the situation. These and related working assumptions are shown to clarify certain long-standing problems of behavior theory and to provide a basis for deriving satisfactory interpretations of several hitherto perplexing phenomena of conditioning, motivational modulation of instrumental behavior, and observational learning. (2 p ref)
Article
Free-operant avoidance responding was maintained by a shock avoidance schedule in three monkeys. The frequency of avoidance responses during a stimulus terminated by response-independent food pellet presentation was dependent upon the method of pellet delivery. Avoidance rates were relatively increased when food retrieval responses followed pellet delivery. Avoidance rates were decreased when retrieval responses preceded pellet delivery.
Article
Investigated the transfer effects of a CS, established under classical aversive conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response, upon subsequent classical appetitive conditioning of the jaw-movement response. 2 experiments were conducted with 108 and 36 New Zealand albino rabbits. Results indicate that (a) prior aversive conditioning interfered with appetitive conditioning, (b) membrane CR performance decreased during jaw-movement conditioning at a faster rate than expected on the basis of extinction, and (c) the occurrences of membrane and jaw-movement CRs during jaw-movement conditioning were independent events. Results are discussed in terms of a reanalysis of possible factors governing outcomes of classical-instrumental transfer experiments and also are related to expectations based upon motivational theories of CR mediational effects. (19 ref)
Article
Experiments concerning the aversive properties of time-out (TO) from positive reinforcement are reviewed. A discussion of experimental designs employed and problems encountered in defining aversive stimuli precedes the review. The major topics covered are: avoidance of TO, escape from TO, escape from stimuli which previously signalled TO, punishment with TO, effects on ongoing behavior of pre-TO stimuli, escape from conditions of positive reinforcement into TO. In general, TO satisfied sufficient criteria to conclude that it belongs to the class of stimuli called "aversive." However, this conclusion is only tentative. (2 p. ref.)
Article
THE HISTORY OF 2-PROCESS LEARNING THEORY IS DESCRIBED, AND THE LOGICAL AND EMPIRICAL VALIDITY OF ITS MAJOR POSTULATES IS EXAMINED. THE ASSUMPTION OF 2 ACQUISITION PROCESSES REQUIRES THE DEMONSTRATION OF AN EMPIRICAL INTERACTION BETWEEN 2 TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCIES AND (1) RESPONSE CLASSES, (2) REINFORCING STIMULUS CLASSES, OR (3) CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEARNED BEHAVIOR ITSELF. THE MEDIATION POSTULATES OF 2-PROCESS THEORY WHICH ARGUE THAT CRS ARE INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE CONTROL OF INSTRUMENTAL RESPONDING ARE EMPHASIZED, AND 2 MAJOR LINES OF EVIDENCE THAT STEM UNIQUELY FROM THESE POSTULATES ARE EXAMINED: (1) THE CONCURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF INSTRUMENTAL RESPONSES AND CONDITIONED REFLEXES, AND (2) THE INTERACTION BETWEEN SEPARATELY CONDUCTED PAVLOVIAN CONDITIONING CONTINGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTAL TRAINING CONTINGENCIES IN THE CONTROL OF INSTRUMENTAL BEHAVIOR. THE EVIDENCE FROM CONCURRENT MEASUREMENT STUDIES PROVIDES, AT THE VERY BEST, ONLY WEAK SUPPORT FOR THE MEDIATIONAL HYPOTHESES OF 2-PROCESS THEORY. IN CONTRAST, THE EVIDENCE FROM INTERACTION STUDIES SHOWS THE STRONG MEDIATING CONTROL OF INSTRUMENTAL RESPONSES BY PAVLOVIAN CONDITIONING PROCEDURES, AND DEMONSTRATES THE SURPRISING POWER OF PAVLOVIAN CONCEPTS IN PREDICTING THE OUTCOMES OF MANY KINDS OF INTERACTION EXPERIMENTS. (4 P. REF.)
Article
The lever pressing of four food deprived male albino rats was maintained by a modified free-operant shock-avoidance procedure. Periodically a clicking sound (CS) was presented. Towards the end of the CS, 10 sucrose pellets (US) were delivered provided S did not press in a given period immediately preceding food delivery. Three independent variables were studied: level of deprivation, kind of avoidance schedule and length of the no-response period preceding pellet delivery. Response facilitation during the CS was found at certain combinations of the independent variables.
Article
Rats were 1st trained on free operant avoidance until a stable response rate was established and then given appetitive discrimination training. A tone stimulus was presented independently of 40 male Long-Evans rats' behavior, which for 1 group, S+, signaled food and for another group, S-, no food. Controls were run for which the tone had no food-predicting value. When the tone was then introduced as a probe in the avoidance situation, it depressed the avoidance response in the S+ group and facilitated it in the S- group. The performance of controls argues against a competing-response interpretation of the transfer effect.