Response enhancement and suppression through compounding discriminative stimuli-signaling free-operant avoidance

Weiss, Stanley J.; Wiltz, Robert A.

doi:10.1037/e611312012-127

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar subtractive summation was obtained when stimuli controlling FOA were compounded. In these studies, a response in tone or light postponed shock by 25 sec, while a response in T+rL postponed it only 10 sec (Weiss, 1976, Experiment 1;Weiss and Wiltz, 1972). On this schedule, tone and light each controlled lower response rates than T+L, and the former stimuli were preferred to T+L (Sidman, 1957;Sidman and Boren, 1957;Weiss, 1976, Experiment 2).…”

Section: Two-factor Combinational Model Represented In Response/incenmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Weiss¹

1978

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Two-factor Combinational Model Represented In Response/incenmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Weiss¹

1978

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In those studies reporting additive summation responding to intermediate composites has been maintained by food as well as shock. When suppressive summation has been reported, suppression during training to the intermediate composites has only been controlled by a CS signaling an unavoidable shock in a conditioned suppression paradigm, punishment for responding (Van Houten & Rudolph, 1971), or shock avoidance (Weiss & Wiltz, 1972). The rate-relation approach to the analysis of summation would be strengthened if suppressive summation was forthcoming from a subject whose differentiated behaviors to the respective values along the composite continuum were solely controlled by positive reinforcement.…”

Section: Analysis Of Rate Relations In Additivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rate-relation interpretation of summation in stimulus compounding could mean that compounding stimuli associated with the same schedule, VI 60-second for instance, could under one circumstance produce additive and under another suppressive summation. In fact Weiss and Wiltz (1972) have already demonstrated that compounding S D s controlling freeoperant avoidance on an RS 25-second schedule could produce suppressive as well as additive summation as a function of the rate and schedule relations between extreme and intermediate composite stimuli in training. The possible implications of such findings to a comprehensive understanding of "excitatory" and "inhibitory" mechanisms in conditioning as identified by compounding assays are discussed in a later section of this paper.…”

Section: Analysis Of Rate Relations In Additivementioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus compounding in free-operant and classical conditioning: A review and analysis.

Weiss¹

1972

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free-operant and classical conditioning studies reporting additive summation, suppressive summation, and response averaging to compounded stimuli are reviewed, and a stimulus control model applicable to additive and suppressive summation in both paradigms is presented. A symmetrical composite-stimulus continuum, denned by the on-off states of the discriminative or conditioned stimuli controlling behavior in training, is seen to be common to both types of summation, with the functions of the ail-on and ail-off continuum extremes interchangeable. Moreover, additive summation, suppressive summation, and response averaging appear to be dependent on discrimination training, and determined by the history of, as well as the immediate relations between, response outputs and reinforcement densities conditioned to particular stimulus values along the composite training dimension. This evidence, and the stimulus control model derived therefrom, are used to functionally relate summation to generalization peak shift and to suggest that these additive, suppressive, and averaging effects to compounded stimuli might further help in clarifying, and in placing in contextual perspective, what are currently thought of as "excitatory" and "inhibitory" mechanisms in learning.This review presents the current status of stimulus-compounding research in free-operant and classical conditioning, 3 and through this presentation it attempts to develop a comprehensive functional analysis of the variables involved in determining the various behavioral resultants reported within this experimental paradigm. The scope of the present paper does not extend to multiple-response or multiplechoice procedures, exemplified by the experiments of Schoeffler (1954) and Atkinson, Calfee, Sommer, Jeffrey, and Shoemaker (1964), but instead focuses on unitary response paradigms where variations in rates or magnitudes of response are of primary concern. Ultimately, the stimulus control analysis formulated is (a) discussed in terms of some

show abstract

Response enhancement and suppression through compounding discriminative stimuli-signaling free-operant avoidance

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Stimulus compounding in free-operant and classical conditioning: A review and analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Response enhancement and suppression through compounding discriminative stimuli-signaling free-operant avoidance

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Stimulus compounding in free-operant and classical conditioning: A review and analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

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

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