Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 161–166 | Cite as

Intersections of Behavior Analysis with Cognitive Models of Contingency Detection

  • Maricel Cigales
Article

Abstract

Bower and Watson have offered, respectively, a logical hypothesis-testing model and a conditional probability model of contingency detection by young infants. Although each could represent cognitive processes concomitant with operant learning, empirical support for these models is sparse. The limitations of each model are discussed, and suggestions are made for a more parsimonious approach by focusing on the areas of overlap between the two.

Key words

contingency detection learning logical hypothesis testing infants 

References

  1. Bauer, M. (1972). Bias in estimates of conditional probabilities and betting behavior as a function of relative frequency and validity of cues in a cue-probability learning task. Acta Psychologica, 36, 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bower, T. G. R. (1997). Contingencies, logic, and learning. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 141–148.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. DeCasper, A. J., & Carstens, A. A. (1981). Contingencies of stimulation: Effects on learning and emotion in neonates. Infant Behavior and Development, 4, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeCasper, A. J., & Sigafoos, A. D. (1983). The intrauterine heartbeat: A potent reinforcer for newborns. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeCasper, A. J. & Spence, M. J. (1986). Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns’ perception of speech sounds. Infant Behavior and Development, 9, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Etzel, B. C., & Gewirtz, J. L. (1967). Experimental modification of caretaker-maintained high-rate operant crying in a 6- and a 20-week-old infant (infans tyrannotearus): Extinction of crying with reinforcement of eye contact and smiling. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 5, 303–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Haith, M. M. (1966). The response of the human newborn to visual movement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 235–243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Pelaez-Nogueras, M., Gewirtz, J. L., Field, T., Cigales, M., Malphurs, J., Clasky, S., & Sanchez, A. (1996). Infant preferences for touch stimulation in face-to-face interactions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 7, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Seligman, M. E. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.Google Scholar
  11. Shanks, D. R. (1993). Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 319–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 33–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Watson, J. S. (1997). Contingency and its two indices within condtional probability analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 129–140.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maricel Cigales
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.MiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations