Can reinforcement by information be reconciled with a Pavlovian account of conditioned reinforcement?

Conditioned reinforcement of human observing behavior by descriptive and arbitrary verbal stimuli

College students earned monetary reinforcers by pressing a key according to a compound schedule with variable-interval and extinction components. Pressing additional keys occasionally produced displays of either of two verbal stimuli; one was uncorrelated with the schedule components, and the other was correlated with the extinction component. In Experiments 1 and 2, the display area of the apparatus was blank unless an observing key was pressed, whereupon a descriptive message appeared. Most students preferred an uncorrelated stimulus stating that "Some of this time scores are TWICE AS LIKELY as normal, and some of this time NO SCORES can be earned" over a stimulus stating that "At this time NO SCORES can be earned." In Experiment 3, the display area indicated that "The Current Status of the Program is: NOT SHOWN." Presses on the observing keys replaced this message with stimuli that provided arbitrary labels for the schedule conditions. All of the students preferred a stimulus stating that "The Current Status of the Program is: B" over an uncorrelated stimulus stating that "The Current Status of the Program is: either A or B." Thus, under some circumstances, observing was maintained by a stimulus correlated with extinction-a finding that poses a challenge for Pavolvian accounts of conditioned reinforcement. Differences in the maintenance of observing by the descriptive and arbitrary stimuli may be attributed to differences in either the strength or nature of the instructional control exerted by the verbal stimuli.

Information on response requirements compared with information on food density as a reinforcer of observing in pigeons

On a variable-interval schedule, pecking the key to the pigeon's right (observing response) produced red or green displays relating to the delivery of grain and its dependence on pecking the key to the left (food key). During various blocks of sessions, mixed (no stimulus change) schedules including the following pairs of components were temporarily converted by the observing response to their corresponding multiple (correlated stimuli) schedules: variable-interval 60-s, extinction; variable-interval 60-s, variable-time (response-independent) 60-s; extinction, variable-time 60-s. Differences in food delivery maintained substantial rates of responding on the observing key, without regard to pecking requirements on the food key. Although stimuli correlated with differences in the response requirement on the food key maintained higher observing rates than those maintained by uncorrelated stimuli, they were much lower than those based on food. The value of predictive stimuli as reinforcers is determined by the value of the events predicted. In particular, the cost of pecking appears to be low, and this may place limitations on the applicability of energy-based and economic models of behavior.