Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Operant Behavior: Still Experimental Analysis of the Three-Term Contingency

  • Original Research
  • Published:
The Behavior Analyst Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Variety effects and stimulus specificity may be two different procedural ways to manipulate the same variable. They may both disrupt habituation (or introduce sensitization) by providing unpredicted changes in the stimulus. The changes in the stimulus may be introduced periodically in the session (a violation of stimulus specificity) or they may occur continuously throughout the session (a variety effect).

  2. The cheese cake diet is suggested only to illustrate a prediction of the present analysis. In practice, no one should undertake a diet that provides such a limited variety of needed nutrients.

References

  • Aoyama, K. (2000). Effects of hunger state on within-session response decreases under CRF schedule. Learning and Motivation, 31, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolles, R. C. (1980). Stress-induced overeating? A response to Robbins and Fray. Appetite, 1, 229–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, M. M., & Epstein, L. H. (2002). Habituation of responding for food in humans. Appetite, 38, 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, P. M., & Thompson, R. F. (1970). Habituation: a dual-process theory. Psychological Review, 77, 419–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Killeen, P. R., & Jacobs, K. W. (2017). Coal is not black, snow is not white, food is not a reinforcer: the roles of affordances and dispositions in the analysis of behavior. The Behavior Analyst

  • Lloyd, D. R., Gancarz, A. M., Ashrafioun, L., Kausch, M. A., & Richards, J. B. (2012). Habituation and the reinforcing effectiveness of visual stimuli. Behavioural Processes, 91, 184–191.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K. (1992). Rate of reinforcement and session duration as determinants of within-session patterns of responding. Animal Learning & Behavior, 20, 160–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K. (2004). Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: satiation and habituation have different implications for theory and practice. The Behavior Analyst, 27, 171–188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., & Hinson, J. M. (1992). Patterns of responding within sessions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 19–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (2000). Criticisms of the satiety hypothesis as an explanation for within-session decreases in responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 347–361.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (2014). Characteristics, theories, and implications of dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness. In F. K. McSweeney & E. S. Murphy (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning (pp. 339–368). Oxford: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., & Roll, J. M. (1998). Do animals satiate or habituate to repeatedly presented reinforcers? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 428–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., & Swindell, S. (1999). General-process theories of motivation revisited: the role of habituation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., & Swindell, S. (2002). Common processes may contribute to extinction and habituation. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 364–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., & Weatherly, J. N. (1998). Habituation to the reinforcer may contribute to multiple-schedule behavioral contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 199–221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., Weatherly, J. N., & Swindell, S. (1996). Reinforcer value may change within experimental sessions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 372–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., Kowal, B. P., & Murphy, E. S. (2003). The effect of rate of reinforcement and time in session on preference for variability. Animal Learning & Behavior, 31, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, F. K., Murphy, E. S., & Kowal, B. P. (2005). Regulation of drug taking by sensitization and habituation. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 13, 163–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., Huh, Y. E., & Vosgerau, J. (2010). Thought for food: imagined consumption reduces actual consumption. Science, 330, 1530–1533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E. S., McSweeney, F. K., Smith, R. G., & McComas, J. J. (2003). Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for applied research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 421–438.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, C. H., Abrams, T., Barry, R. J., Bhatnagar, S., Clayton, D., Colombo, J., et al. (2009). Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 135–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rolls, B. J., Rowe, E. A., & Rolls, E. T. (1982). How sensory properties of foods affect human feeding behavior. Physiology & Behavior, 29, 409–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. F., & Spencer, W. A. (1966). Habituation: a model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychological Review, 73, 16–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No grants supported the writing of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of the Provost, Washington State University, PO Box 641046, Pullman, WA, 99164-1046, USA

    Frances K. McSweeney

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, 99508, USA

    Eric S. Murphy

Authors
  1. Frances K. McSweeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric S. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frances K. McSweeney.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McSweeney, F.K., Murphy, E.S. Understanding Operant Behavior: Still Experimental Analysis of the Three-Term Contingency. BEHAV ANALYST 40, 39–47 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0088-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0088-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation