The Operant‐respondent Distinction: Future Directions

Pear, Joseph J.; Eldridge, Gloria D.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1984.42-453

Cited by 91 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It follows that the traditional procedural distinctions between Pavlovian and operant conditioning do not define critical differences in basic learning processes, but rather specify differences in how a system is engaged and measured (Gormezano & Kehoe, 1975;Pear & Eldridge, 1984). Because the underlying system is the same, the results of Pavlovian and operant conditioning should overlap as well.…”

Section: Learned Behavior Is Complexly Causedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associative and behavior systems accounts of Pavlovian conditioning have different emphases. The traditional associative account has focused on the role of the unconditional stimulus (US) in strengthening stimulus associations according to a set of general laws. The behavior systems account has focused on the relation of conditional responding to the preorganized perceptual, motor, and motivational organization engaged by the US. Knowledge of a behavior system enables successful prediction of the form and ease of conditioning as a function of the type of conditional stimulus (CS), US, and the CS-US relation. At the same time, Pavlovian manipulations act as a window on how a behavior system works. Both associative and behavior systems accounts can be criticized as incomplete and idiosyncratic. A comprehensive account of Pavlovian conditioning could profit from their integration. 405Laboratory-associationist and adaptive-evolutionary accounts of Pavlovian conditioning differ markedly in their focus. The former has emphasized the association between the conditional stimulus (CS) and the unconditional stimulus (US), and the role of the US in strengthening it (e.g., Hearst, 1988;Kimble, 1961;Mackintosh, 1974;Pavlov, 1927). Conditioning procedures have been refined and standardized to isolate the study of associations from the influence of instincts, nonassociative changes, and response-contingent reward (Hilgard & Marquis, 1940;Kimble, 1961). More recent models have expanded the types ofassociation and the role ofcontext, multiple CSs, the CS-US contingency, and stimulus representations in determining behavior (e.g., Miller & Matzel, 1988;Rescorla & Holland, 1982). However, the focus has remained on associations among stimuli and the simple causal role of the US. Within this approach, behavior has been treated primarily as an index of the strength of associations.In contrast, adaptive-evolutionary accounts of Pavlovian conditioning have emphasized behavior, especially the relation of the conditional response to the form and orientation of naturally occurring functional behavior and relevant underlying structure and processes (e.g., Davey, 1989;Fanselow & Lester, 1988;Gardner & Gardner, 1988;Holland, 1984;Hollis, 1982Hollis, , 1990Konorski, 1967;Rozin & Schull, 1988;Timberlake, 1983b;Timberlake & Lucas, 1989; Timberlake & Silva, in press). In this approach, establishing the perceptual-motor organiCompletion of this manuscript was facilitated by NIMH Grant 37892 and NSF Grant IBN 91 21647. The manuscript is based on a symposium presentation at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, 1993. I am indebted to Cynthia Langley, Fran Silva, and Kathleen Silva for their comments. Please address correspondence to W. Timberlake, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, zation and motivational processes underlying behavior is a critical step in understanding conditioning. Presentation of the US is viewed as engaging and constraining preorganized mechanisms underlying behavior, rather tha...

show abstract

Section: Learned Behavior Is Complexly Causedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A description of the apparatus has been published elsewhere (Pear & Eldridge, 1984). The inner dimensions of the experimental chamber were 57 x 57 x 38 em.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both cameras were connected to a television monitor in the room containing the programming equipment, and a selector switch permitted visual observation from either camera throughout each session. For a block diagram of the system, see Pear and Eldridge (1984, Figure 1, p. 461).…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of prior response-contingent reinforcement on superstitious behavior

Eldridge

Pear

Torgrud

et al. 1988

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three pigeons were exposed to fixed-time (IT) 15 sec, fixed-interval (FI) 15 sec for performing an arbitrary response, a reversal back to IT 15 sec, and then extinction (no reinforcement). During each phase, a computer-controlled tracking system continuously recorded the position of the bird's head as it moved freely in the experimental chamber. During the first exposure to IT 15 sec, all 3 birds developed a pattern offeeder-wall-directed behavior with occasional circular excursions from the feeder immediately following reinforcement. During FI 15 sec, all birds performed the arbitrary operant, which consisted ofcontacting a virtual target sphere near the rear of the chamber, and did not engage in feederwall-directed behavior. During the reversal back to IT 15 sec, the birds developed a behavior sequence consisting of moving in the direction of the target sphere after reinforcement, followed by feeder-walldirected behavior prior to the next reinforcement. During extinction, either moves toward the target sphere or wall-directed behavior occurred separately, interspersed with reappearance of the two as a sequence, followed by cessation of both members of the behavior sequence. These findings indicate that prior reinforcement of an arbitrary response can affect the location and form of superstitious behavior that developenear the beginning of the interreinforcement interval, but that other factors (e.g.,immediacy of reinforcement) affect the location and form of the behavior near the end of the interval. The findings can be interpreted in the context of superstitious chaining.The effect of delivering reinforcement independent of behavior has received some attention in the operant literature. Since a reinforcer, by definition, strengthens any behavior it follows, Skinner (1948) argued that the effect of delivering reinforcement independent of behavior would be to increase the occurrence of any behavior that might be occurring at the time. If the next reinforcer was delivered when this behavior was occurring, the behavior should be strengthened further. In this way, the behavior could become predominant. In addition, Skinner described data obtained with pigeons that seemed to support this interpretation of the effect of response-independent reinforcement. Since the behavior that was conditioned did not produce the reinforcer, Skinner described the behavior as a superstition.One strategy for studying superstition, or superstitious behavior, is to first condition a given response, using response-dependent reinforcement, and then change to response-independent reinforcement (e.g., Appel & Hiss, 1962;Herrnstein, 1966;Lachter, 1971; Lachter, Cole, & Schoenfeld, 1971;Neuringer, 1970;Zeiler, 1968). For example, the experimental subject might first be exposed to a fixed-interval (FI) schedule, in which reinforcement is contingent on the first instance of the specified behavior that occurs after a fixed interval following the previous reinforcement, and then to a fixed-time (FT) schedule in which reinforcement occurs at fi...

show abstract

“…The data were averaged in blocks of three, yielding 10 data points/sec (for additional details, see Pear, Rector, & Legris, 1982, or Pear & Eldridge, 1984.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fourier analysis of movement patterns in pigeons

Silva

Pear

Tait

1996

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fourier analysis describes the amount of variation in a time series by partitioning it into sinusoids of different amplitudes and wavelengths and quantifying the extent to which these waves are synchronized. The importance of a given wave is represented by its contribution to the explained variance of the time series. To illustrate its potential application to the study of movement, Fourier analysis was used to quantify the movement patterns of 2 pigeons on a variable-interval (VI) and a variable-time (VT) schedule of reinforcement. For comparison, the movements of 2 pigeons that did not receive reinforcement were similarly analyzed. Characteristic frequencies were higher during VI than during VT, and relatively low during nonreinforcement. Weconcluded that Fourier analysis can be used to represent movement patterns compactly, study their periodicity, stereotypy, and resonance, and assist in computer simulations and models of movement.

show abstract

The Operant‐respondent Distinction: Future Directions

Cited by 91 publications

References 62 publications

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

Effects of prior response-contingent reinforcement on superstitious behavior

Fourier analysis of movement patterns in pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About