Stimulus control of free-operant avoidance: The contribution of response rate and incentive relations between multiple-schedule components

Weiss, Stanley J.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(76)90001-1

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was the case whether responding in tone and in light was maintained by food or by shock avoidance. This replicates many previous findings of single-incentive stimuluscompounding studies (Emurian & Weiss, 1972;Meltzer & Masaki, 1972;Miller & Ackley, 1970;Weiss, 1964Weiss, , 1971Weiss, , 1976 while showing that the stimulus control established to create the appetitive-aversive interaction in Phases 1 and 3 was reversible. It is likely, however, that the contingency reversals over phases could have reduced the magnitude of the additive effect from what it would have been if the subjects had been trained on only the Phase 2 similar-incentive baseline, as they were for the studies represented by Point A,B in Figure 1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Weiss

Schindler²

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 stimuluscompounding 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-S1) contingencies were arranged to make them, respectively, conditioned appetitive and aversive excitors (present experiment) produced test results comparable to those of two Sds whose implicit s-sr 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. 433One of the important objectives of psychology is to understand, that is, to be able to predict and control, behavior. Unfortunately, the ability to predict when a particular operant will be emitted, and when it will not, does not necessarily reflect an appreciation of the multiple factors that could be contributing to the stimulus control generated in any particular situation. This was clearly revealed in a series of experiments in which a comparison of baseline rates to each of two discriminative stimuli (Sds) as a measure of stimulus control was supplemented by stimulus-eompounding assays in which the single Sds were presented simultaneously for the first time (Weiss, 1969, 1971Weiss & Van Ost, 1974).In those experiments, the baseline rates of three groups of rats were indistinguishable from each other in spite of the fact that each group was trained on a different threecomponent schedule. In all three groups, rats barpressed

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Weiss

Schindler²

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When responding was maintained in tone and in light by FOA at roughly one-half that in T + L, where food reinforcement was prograrnmed, tone and light each controlled a response decrease (S-R~) and an avoidance incentive increase (S-SRt). With these conflicting S-sRt and S-R~associations, rates in testing to tone, light, and T + L were comparable (Weiss, 1976, Experiment 2).2 These results 01' the S-R manipulation reveal a similar algebraic combination 01' S-R and S-SR associations as that suggested by Weiss (1971) and Weiss and Van Ost (1974), who manipulated the S-SR association. The findings 01' this S-SR manipulation support the emphasis 01' conventional two-factor theory which postulates the "mediation" 01' instrumental behavior by classically conditional associations.…”

Section: Stimulus-reinforcer Associations 427supporting

confidence: 69%

The isolation of stimulus-reinforcer associations established with multiple schedules

Weiss

1977

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple schedules established stimulus-reinforcer IS-SR) associations on baselines in which equal response rates and patterning were maintained in all components. Subsequently, stimuli associated with an increase in reinforcement but no change in ongoing response rate were compounded. For one experimental group, free-operant avoidance WOA) was programmed in tone and in light while variable-Interval (VI) food reinforcement was effective in their simultaneous absence irr + L). The opposite stirnulus-schedule combinations were programmed for the other. Both groups remained in their VI components 85% of the session on schedule preference tests, and on a stimulus compounding test emitted approximately 1.5 times as many responses to tone-plus-light (T + L) as to tone or light alone. This is the first report of additive summation to combined discriminative stimuli associated with only an increase in reinforcement, Nondifferentially trained controls who had the same contingency effective in tone, light, and T + L-VI or FOA-showed neither preference among schedule components or summation during stimulus compounding, indicating that nonassociative stimulus factors made no contribution to either resultant in the experimental animals. Evidence supporting an algebraic combination of response and reinforcement associations is presented, and functional similarities between transfer-of-control studies and the stimulus compounding tests of the experimental groups in the present experiment are discussed.When an organism's operant response rate is under discriminative stimulus (SO) control a stirnulusresponse-reinforcer (S-R-SR) sequence is usually established. Within this framework, two types of association to the SO may be identified, the stimulusresponse (S-R) association established through the response-reinforcer contingency and the stimulusreinforcer (S-SR) association. The contribution of each type of association to stimulus control is often ambiguous, because on most multicomponent freeoperant baselines response rate and reinforcement rate are highly correlated. As an example, consider a three-component multiple schedule where responding is maintained to a tone and a light by rein forcement while in the absence of both tone and light (T + I") responding is eliminated through nonreinforcement. Here, the tone and the light (I) will come to be discriminative for an increase in response rate, the S-R association, and (2) will signal an increase in reinforcement frequency, the S-SR asociation. This confounding of S-R and S-SR associations complicates causal analysis when behaviors may be ex-

show abstract

“…Instead, the results show that responding is determined by some sort of interaction between the associative properties of both stimuli (see also Meltzer & Niebuhr, 1974;Weiss, 1976). A common suggestion concerning the nature of this interaction is that, when two or more stimuli are presented in compound, responding is determined by the sum of their associative properties (Hara & Warren, 1961;Hull, 1943;Konorski, 1948;McGonigle, 1967;Pavlov, 1927;Pearce & Hall, 1980;Rescorla & Wagner, 1972;Spence, 1936;Weiss, 1972).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Using appetitive operant conditioning, summation has been found with rats (Hamm, Porter, & Oster, 1978;Strub & Barske, 1977;Weiss, 1977) and pigeons (Long & Allen, 1974;Meltzer & Hamm, 1976). Summation has also been reported with avoidance responding using dogs (LoLordo & Hart, 1972)and rats (Emurian & Weiss, 1972;Van Houten & Rudolph, 1971;Weiss, 1976Weiss, , 1977.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

Some determinants of response summation

Aydin

Pearce

1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimulus control of free-operant avoidance: The contribution of response rate and incentive relations between multiple-schedule components

Cited by 25 publications

References 32 publications

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

The isolation of stimulus-reinforcer associations established with multiple schedules

Some determinants of response summation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About