The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 149–154 | Cite as

Differing Views of Contingencies: How Contiguous?

Article

Abstract

The contingency between environmental events and behavior has proven to be a useful concept in the study of both behavior and cognition. There is common ground in the definition of contingency in both domains, but interpretations of the basis of its action differ. For behavior analysts the contingency acts through both its direct, response-strengthening effect and indirectly through its function as a discriminative stimulus. Cognitive accounts, as represented in the work of both Bower and Watson, focus more on the organism’s detection and interpretation of the contingency as the basis of its action. Despite such conceptual differences, Watson’s quantitative descriptions of contingency effects seem relevant to feedback functions that describe reinforcement schedule performance and, as such, may bear on research involving combinations of response-dependent and response-independent food presentations and on superstitious behavior.

Key words

contingency contiguity response-independent events superstitious behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 137–153.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bower, T. G. R. (1997). Contingencies, logic, and learning. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 141–148.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennett, D. C. (1983). Intentional systems in cognitive ethology: The “Panglossian paradigm” defended. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 343–390. (Includes commentary)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gleeson, S., & Lattal, K. A. (1987). Response-reinforcer relations and the maintenance of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 383–393.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Greenspoon, J. (1955). The reinforcing effect of two spoken sounds on the frequency of two responses. American Journal of Psychology, 68, 409–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hefferline, R. F., Keenan, B., & Harford, R. A. (1959). Escape and avoidance conditioning in human subjects without their observation of the response. Science, 130, 1338–1339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Herrnstein, R. J., & Hineline, P. N. (1966). Negative reinforcement as shock-frequency reduction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 421–430.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Killeen, P. (1978). Superstition: A matter of bias, not detectability. Science, 199, 88–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lattal, K. A. (1974). Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 357–362.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Lattal, K. A. (1975). Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 241–246.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Lattal, K. A. (1979). Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli: II. Effects of changes in stimulus probability. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 15–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Lattal, K. A. (1995). Contingency and behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 18, 209–224.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Lattal, K. A., & Bryan, A. J. (1976). Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 495–504.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Lattal, K. A., & Poling, A. D. (1981). Describing response-event relations: Babel revisited. The Behavior Analyst, 4, 143–152.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Nevin, J. A., & Baum, W. M. (1980). Feedback functions for variable-interval reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 207–217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Rachlin, H., & Baum, W. M. (1972). Alternative reinforcement: Does the source matter? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 231–241.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychological Review, 74, 71–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosenfeld, H. M., & Baer, D. M. (1970). Unbiased and unnoticed verbal conditioning: The double agent robot procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 99–107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Schoenfeld, W. N., & Farmer, J. (1970). Reinforcement schedules and the “behavior stream.” In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 215–245). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  21. Scott, G. K., & Platt, J. R. (1985). Model of response-reinforcer contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 152–171.Google Scholar
  22. Sizemore, O. J., & Lattal, K. A. (1977). Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sizemore, O. J., & Lattal, K. A. (1978). Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 169–175.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Skinner, B. F. (1948). “Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Svartdal, F. (1992). Sensitivity to nonverbal operant contingencies: Do limited processing resources affect operant conditioning in humans? Learning and Motivation, 23, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Warner, J. E. (1990). The discrimination of delayed and response-independent events. Unpublished master’s thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Watson, J. S. (1997). Contingency and its two indices within conditional probability analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 129–140.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams, B. A. (1976). The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 441–449.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Zeiler, M. D. (1968). Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 405–414.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Zeiler, M. D. (1976). Positive reinforcement and the elimination of reinforced responses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 37–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Zeiler, M. D. (1977). Elimination of reinforced behavior: Intermittent schedules of not-responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 23–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations