The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 141–148 | Cite as

Contingencies, Logic, and Learning

  • T. G. R. Bower
Article

Abstract

A logical analysis of operant learning is presented. In total, the analysis makes a number of predictions that are different from the predictions of any other theory. Individual predictions can be explained by other theories, but the pattern of predictions is unique. Some tests of the predictions of the analysis with human newborns are described. The analysis predicts increased variance in sucking with the introduction of continuous reinforcement. This does occur. The analysis predicts a decreased rate of sucking with a shift from continuous to partial reinforcement. This does occur. The analysis predicts an increased rate of sucking with a shift from continuous reinforcement to continuous plus noncontingent reinforcement. Due to methodological deficiencies, we have been unable to test this prediction. However, it has been confirmed by others. The most exciting prediction of the analysis is a rapid way of producing extinction. That has not been tested with newborns; however, there is confirmatory evidence in the literature.

Key words

contingency learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bower, T. G. R. (1988). The rational infant. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  2. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. M. (1997). Words, thoughts and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 297–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Hammond, L. J., & Weinberg, M. C. (1984). Signaling unearned reinforcers removes the suppression produced by zero correlation in an operant paradigm. Animal Learning & Behavior, 12, 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hillman, D., & Bruner, J. S. (1972). Infant sucking in response to variations in schedules of feeding reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13, 240–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Krechevsky, I. (1932). “Hypotheses” in rats. Psychological Review, 39, 516–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mazur, J. E. (1983). Steady-state performance on fixed-, mixed- and random-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 293–307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Meno, K., John, N., Armstrong, E. S., & Bower, T. G. R. (1997). Logical relations and operant responding. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  9. Monnier, C. (1981). La genese de l’exploration chez le bebe. Lausanne: Presses Universitaires Lausanne.Google Scholar
  10. Piaget, J. (1936). The origins of intelligence. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  11. Semb, G., & Lipsitt, L. P. (1968). The effects of acoustic stimulation on cessation and imitation of non-nutritive sucking in neonates. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 6, 585–597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  13. Walton, G. E., & Bower, T. G. R. (1992, May). Operant control of the single suck in newborns. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference on Infant Studies, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
  14. 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

  • T. G. R. Bower
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Human DevelopmentUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations