Three versions of the additive theories of behavioral contrast

Facets of Pavlovian and operant extinction

Research on extinction is of fundamental importance in both Pavlovian and operant approaches to the experimental analysis of learning. Although these approaches are often motivated by different empirical and theoretical questions, extinction has emerged as a research area in which common themes unite the two approaches. In this review, we focus on some common considerations in the analysis of Pavlovian and operant extinction. These include methodological challenges and interpretational issues in analyzing behavior during and after extinction. We consider the different roles that theory has played in the development of research on extinction in these preparations and conclude with some attention to applications of extinction.

Positive behavioral contrast when pigeons press treadles during multiple schedules

Pigeons were placed on multiple variable-interval 15-second variable-interval 15-second and on multiple variable-interval 15-second extinction schedules in which treadle presses produced food reinforcers. Positive behavioral contrast occurred. That is, rates of responding were higher during the variable-interval 15-second component when the other component was extinction than when it was another variable-interval 15-second schedule. These results contradict the findings of other studies, which failed to find positive contrast when pigeons pressed treadles for food reinforcers. They may also question the additive theories of behavioral contrast that predict that contrast should not occur in this situation.

Another look at contrast in multiple schedules

Recent research on multiple schedule interactions is reviewed. Contrary to formulations that view contrast as the result of elicited behavior controlled by the stimulus-reinforcer contingency (e.g., additivity theory), the major controlling variable is the relative rate of reinforcement, which cannot be reduced to some combination of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer effects. Other recent theoretical formulations are also reviewed and all are found to face serious counterevidence. The best description of the available data continues to be in terms of the "context of reinforcement," but Herrnstein's (1970) formulation of the basis of such context effects appears to be inadequate. An alternative conception is provided by Catania's concept of "inhibition by reinforcement," by which rate of responding is inversely related to the average rate of reinforcement in the situation. Such a conception is related to Gibbon's recent scalar-expectancy account of autoshaping and Fantino's delay-reduction model of conditioned reinforcement, suggesting that a common set of principles determines several diverse conditioning phenomena. However, the empirical status of such a description remains uncertain, because recent evidence shows that schedule interactions are temporally asymmetric, depending primarily upon the conditions of reinforcement that follow a schedule component.

Jeab at 50: coevolution of research and technology

Evidence of how behavioral research and technology have evolved together abounds in the history of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB). Technology from outside the discipline (exogenous), from such disciplines as electronics and computer science, has been adapted for use in behavioral research. Technology from within the discipline (endogenous) has developed from both basic behavioral research and existing apparatus. All of these sources of technology have contributed to the corpus of behavioral research as it has evolved in JEAB. Such research, in turn, has provided the environmental pressure necessary for continuing technological evolution both within and outside the discipline. The new technology thus evolved further spurs research along in novel directions. This dynamic coevolutionary interplay between research and technology is an important variable in the past, present, and future of JEAB.

Locating reward cue at response manipulandum (CAM) induces symptoms of drug abuse

Appetitive instrumental discrimination learning procedures provide for CAM (cue and manipulandum) when the reward cue (discriminative stimulus positively correlated with positive reinforcement) is located at the response manipulandum (object that when contacted or manipulated defines the performance of the instrumental response). Evidence reviewed shows that CAM induces excessive and compulsive instrumental responding relative to otherwise comparable non-CAM control procedures. In humans, symptoms of drug abuse are particularly likely when the drug-taking implement (response manipulandum at which instrumental drug-taking is directed) is also predictive of the drug's rewarding effects (reward cue). Evidence that the predictive relationship between a drug-taking implement and drug reward relates to drug abuse is reviewed, and implications for treatment and prevention are considered. CAM is related to neurobiological models of drug abuse that emphasize the role of the neurotransmitter dopamine (DA). CAM produces convergence of DA-mediated responding for conditioned reinforcement with DA mediation of psychomotor activation and incentive-motivational processes to yield reflexive cue-directed responding not observed in non-CAM controls.