The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 129–140 | Cite as

Contingency and Its Two Indices Within Conditional Probability Analysis

Article

Abstract

Four theoretical bases for detecting a contingency between behavior and consequent stimuli are considered: contiguity, correlation, conditional probability, and logical implication. It is argued that conditional probability analysis is statistically the most powerful of these options, in part due to its provision of two indices of contingency: a forward time probability that reinforcement follows behavior and a backward time probability that behavior precedes reinforcement. Evidence is cited that both indices appear to bear on the learning of a variety of animals, although they are unequally salient to human adults and to artificial neural networks designed to solve time-series functions. It is hypothesized that humans may acquire the capacity to detect contingency in the progressive sequence: contiguity, correlation, forward time conditional probability, backward time conditional probability, and ultimately logical implication.

Key words

contingency infancy learning reinforcement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bower, T. G. R. (1989). The rational infant. Chicago: Freeman.Google Scholar
  2. Copi, I. M. (1958). Symbolic logic. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  3. Diethelm, K. (1991). Mutter-kind interacktion. Friburg, Switzerland: Hans Huber Press.Google Scholar
  4. Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gewirtz, J. L., & Pelaez-Nogueras, M. (1992). B. F. Skinner’s legacy in human infant behavior and development. American Psychologist, 7, 1411–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Justice, T. C., & Looney, T. A. (1990). Another look at “superstitions” in pigeons. Bulletin of the Psychonomics Society, 28, 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewicka, M. (1988). On objective and subjective anchoring of cognitive acts: How behavioral valence modifies reasoning schemata. In W. J. Baker, L. P. Mos, H. V. Rappard, & H. J. Stamm (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 285–301). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maier, S. F., Seligman, M. E. P., & Solomon, R. L. (1969). Pavlovian fear conditioning and learned helplessness. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment (pp. 299–343). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  9. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Nolfi, S., & Parisi, D. (1995). Evolving artificial neural networks that develop in time. In F. Moran, A. Moreno, J. J. Merelo, & P. Chacon (Eds.), Advances in artificial life (pp. 353–367). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74, 71–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rovee, C. K., & Rovee, D. T. (1969). Conjugate reinforcement of infant exploratory behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8, 33–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rovee-Collier, C. K. (1987). Learning and memory in infancy. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 98–148). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  16. Seligman, M. E. P., Meyer, B., & Testa, T. (1971). Appetitive helplessness: Non-contingent reinforcement retards instrumental learning. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  17. Shanks, D. R. (1985). Forward and backward blocking in human contingency judgment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37B, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shanks, D. R. (1995). Is human learning rational? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  20. Staddon, J. E. R., & Simmelhag, V. L. (1970). The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Timberlake, W., & Lucas, G. A. (1985). The basis of superstitious behavior: Chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 279–299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Watson, J. S. (1971). Cognitive-perceptual development in infancy: Setting for the seventies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 17, 139–152.Google Scholar
  23. Watson, J. S. (1977). Depression and the perception of control in early childhood. In J. G. Shulterbrandt & A. Raskin (Eds.), Depression in childhood: Diagnosis, treatment, and conceptual models (pp. 123–133). New York: Raven.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Watson, J. S. (1985). Contingency perception in early social development. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 157–176). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  26. Watson, J. S. (1994). Detection of self: The perfect algorithm. In S. T. Parker, R. W. Mitchell, & M. L. Boccia (Eds.), Self-awareness in animals and humans (pp. 131–148). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations