DISCRIMINATED RESPONSE AND INCENTIVE PROCESSES IN OPERANT CONDITIONING: A TWO‐FACTOR MODEL OF STIMULUS CONTROL¹

Abstract

Understanding stimulus control generated in instrumental learning requires the direct investigation of discriminated response and reinforcer (incentive) processes acquired exclusively through the response-reinforcer contingencies operating on complex (multicomponent) baselines. Two series of stimulus-compounding studies accomplished this direct investigation. In one series, the independent variable was the relative reinforcement between schedule components; in the second series, it was relative response rate between components. Stimulus-compounding tests revealed that response and incentive processes enhanced each other when in agreement, counteracted each other when in opposition, and produced intermediate results when only one factor was operating. This pattern of results led to the conclusion that these factors were algebraically combining and to the development of a response/incentive matrix reflecting these dynamics. This two-factor analysis was extended to the peak-shift effect in stimulus generalization experiments and to the generation of inhibitory control. Two decades of stimulus compounding and peak-shift research were organized within this two-factor framework, extending this traditional approach to learning to active research areas heretofore not systematically considered in these terms.

Conditioning history and inhibitory instrumental stimulus control: Independent-groups and within-subjects measures

“…(Phase I results are, of course, those of the control group in Experiment 1.) A treatments X subjects ANOVA of Phase 1 yielded an F(2, 10) = 18.63, p < .001 (Lindquist, 1953 (Weiss, 1972(Weiss, , 1978 was exhibited here, with the magnitude of the effect no smaller than that reported when S2 had had no previous inhibitory training (Emurian & Weiss, 1972). 52 clearly acted in an excitatory capacity, with T + L controlling approximately 2.5 times the rate to S, or S2'…”

“…The Rescorla-Wagner model was formulated specifically for the classical conditioning paradigm. However, it might be relevant to the current operant research, for it is widely accepted that a conditioned fear reaction provides the 1963; Rescorla & Solomon, 1967;Weiss, 1978). Particular characteristics of the present experiment are especially relevant if one tries to apply the widely accepted Rescorla-Wagner model to the current findings.…”

Summation and configuration between and within sensory modalities in classical conditioning of the rabbit

“…The usual outcome of stimulus compounding is summation, meaning that the compound yields a higher level of responding than do the individual CSs (see, e.g., Couvillon & Bitterman, 1982;Kehoe & Graham, 1988;Weiss, 1972Weiss, , 1978. However, for theoretical purposes, it is not clear what is being summated.…”

“…Atomistic theories assume that stimuli always retain their specific perceptual characters when they are combined (e.g., Kehoe, 1988;Rescorla & Wagner, 1972;Weiss, 1972Weiss, , 1978. Conversely, in configural theories, it is assumed that a perceptual fusion or interaction always occurs when stimuli are combined (see, e.g., Hull, 1943;Pearce, 1987).…”

Response summation and noncontingent reinforcement

“…But a number of studies have also shown facilitation of instrumental responses when an appetitive es was presented (e.g., LoLordo, McMillan, & Riley, 1974;Meltzer & Hamm, 1974, 1978. In the latter cases, the CS was usually of longer duration.…”