Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 121–128 | Cite as

The Response-Stimulus Contingency and Reinforcement Learning as a Context for Considering Two Non-Behavior-Analytic Views of Contingency Learning

  • Jacob L. Gewirtz
Article

Abstract

This paper introduces a special section on the contingency. Bower and Watson were invited to present their views of contingency learning in human infants from outside the context of behavior analysis, and Cigales, Marr, and Lattal and Shahan provided commentaries that point out some of the more interesting and controversial aspects of those views from a behavior-analytic perspective. The debate turns on how to conceptualize the response-stimulus contingency of operant learning. The present paper introduces the contingency concept and contingency detection by subjects, as well as research practices in behavior analysis, in a context in which the dependency between infant responding and the presentation of environmental consequences may be disrupted through procedures in which ordinarily consequent events occur before the response or in its absence. These points can relate to and serve as an introduction to the Bower and Watson papers on infant contingency learning as well as to the three commentaries that follow.

Key words

contingency infant operant learning reinforcement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baer, D. M., & Wolf, M. M. (1970). Recent examples of behavior modification in preschool settings. In C. Neuringer & J. L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modification in clinical psychology (pp. 10–55). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Bower, T. G. R. (1997). Contingencies, logic, and learning. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 141–148.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Cigales, M. (1997). Intersections of behavior analysis with cognitive models of contingency detection. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 161–166.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Egel, A. L. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 3–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Galbicka, G., & Platt, J. R. (1984). Interresponse-time punishment: A basis for shock-maintained behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 291–308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Galbicka, G., & Platt, J. R. (1989). Response-reinforcer contingency and spatially defined operant: Testing an invariant property of phi. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 145–162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Gewirtz, J. L., Carr, J. E., & Roth, W. E. (1995). An evaluation of the infant operant-conditioning literature. Unpublished manuscript, Florida International University.Google Scholar
  8. Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1992). B. F. Skinner’s legacy to human infant behavior and development. American Psychologist, 47, 1411–1422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1993). “Expectancy”: Sleight-of-hand mentalism, not mechanism or process. American Psychologist, 48, 1156–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1996a). El analisis conductual del desarrollo. In S. W. Bijou & E. Ribes (Coordinadores), El desarrollo del comportamiento (pp. 77–106). Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara.Google Scholar
  11. Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1996b). In the context of gross environmental and organismic changes, learning provides the main basis for behavioral development. In S. W. Bijou & E. Ribes (Eds.), New directions in behavior development (pp. 15–34). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  12. Guthrie, E. R. (1952). The psychology of learning (rev. ed.). Magnolia, MA: Peter Smith. (original work published 1935)Google Scholar
  13. Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral psychology. Chicago: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  14. Konorski, J., & Miller, S. (1937). On two types of conditioned reflex. Journal of General Psychology, 16, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lattal, K. A., & Shahan, T. A. (1997). Differing views of contingencies: How contiguous? The Behavior Analyst, 20, 149–154.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Marr, J. (1997). Infants’ feats of inference: A commentary on Bower and Watson. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 155–159.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Millar, W. S. (1972). A study of operant conditioning under delayed reinforcement in early infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 37 (2, Serial No. 147).Google Scholar
  18. Pavlov, I. P. (1960). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. (G. V. Anrep, Trans.) New York: Dover. (original work published 1927)Google Scholar
  19. Peters, R. S. (Ed.). (1965). Brett’s history of psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Piaget, J. (1936). The origins of intelligence. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  21. Reeve, L., Reeve, K. F., & Poulson, C. L. (1993). Parameters of delayed reinforcement in young infants. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 515–527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Skinner, B. F. (1935). Two types of conditioned reflex and a pseudo-type. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skinner, B. F. (1937). Two types of conditioned reflex: A reply to Konorski and Miller. Journal of General Psychology, 16, 272–279. (Reprinted in Cumulative record, pp. 376–389, by B. F. Skinner, 1959, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs, 2, No. 8.Google Scholar
  25. Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
  27. Walker, J. T. (1996). The psychology of learning: Principles and processes. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, J. S. (1979). Perception of contingency as a determinant of social responsiveness. In E. B. Thoman (Ed.), Origins of the infant’s social responsiveness (pp. 33–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Watson, J. S. (1997). Contingency and its two indices within conditional probability analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 129–140.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacob L. Gewirtz
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations