Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 347–358 | Cite as

A Latent Effect of Us Preexposure in Autoshaping

  • Paula J. Durlach
  • Laurel M. McQuoid
  • Glenn Regehr
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

In two experiments, pigeons were given unsignaled food presentations (Group Unsignaled), tone-food pairings (Group Signaled), or no treatment (Group Control). All groups were subsequently given pairings of a white keylight with food. Although no group differences in autoshaping to white appeared, when birds were subsequently given autoshaping with a different colored light using partial reinforcement, either in a different set of chambers (Experiment 1) or in the same set of chambers (Experiment 2), an effect of prior treatment did appear. Birds in Group Unsignaled responded at a lower rate than those in Groups Signaled and Control, which did not differ.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BAKER, A., & BAKER, P. A. (1985). Does inhibition differ from excitation: Proactive interference, contextual conditioning, and extinction. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 151–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. BAKER, A. G., & MERCIER, P. (1989). Attention, retrospective processing, and cognitive representations. In S. B. Klein & R. R. Mowrer (Eds.), Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 85–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. BAKER, A. G., MERCIER, P., GABLE, J., & BAKER, P. A. (1981). Contextual conditioning and the Us preexposure effect in conditioned fear. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 109–128.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. BALSAM, P. D., & GIBBON, J. (1988). Formation of tone-Us associations does not interfere with the formation of context-US associations in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 401–412.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. BALSAM, P. D., & SCHWARTZ, A. L. (1981). Rapid contextual conditioning in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 382–393.Google Scholar
  6. DURLACH, P. J. (1983). Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 374–389.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. GIBBON, J., & BALSAM, P. D. (1981). Spreading association in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. GODDARD, M. J., & JENKINS, H. M. (1988). Blocking of a CS-US association by a US-US association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 177–186.Google Scholar
  9. HINSON, R. E. (1982). Effects of Ucs preexposure on excitatory and inhibitory rabbit eyelid conditioning: An associative effect of conditioned contextual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 49–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. JENKINS, H. M., BARNES, R. A., & BARRERA, F. J. (1981). Why autoshaping depends on trial spacing. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 255–284). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. JENKINS, H. M., & SHATTUCK, D. (1981). Contingency in fear conditioning: A reexamination. Bulletin of the Psychonomie Society, 17, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. RANDICH, A. (1981). The Us preexposzure phenomenon in the conditioned suppression paradigm: A role for conditioned situational stimuli. Learning and Motivation, 12, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. RANDICH, A., & LOLORDO, V. M. (1979). Associative and nonassociative theories of the US pre-exposure phenomenon: Implications for Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 523–548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. RESCORLA, R. A. (1984). Signaling intertrial shocks attenuates their negative effect on conditioned suppression. Bulletin of the Psychonomie Society, 22, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. RESCORLA, R. A., DURLACH, P. J., & GRAU, J. W. (1985). Contextual learning in Pavlovian conditioning. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.), Context and learning (pp. 23–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. RESCORLA, R. A., & WAGNER, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. K. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  17. SCHWARTZ, B., REISBERG, D., & VOLLMECKE, T. (1974). Effects of treadle training on autoshaped keypecking: Learned laziness and learned industriousness or response competition? Bulletin of the Psychonomie Society, 3, 369–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. TOMIE, A. (1976). Interference with autoshaping by prior context conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 323–334.Google Scholar
  19. TOMIE, A. (1981). The effects of unpredictable food upon the subsequent acquisition of autoshaping: Analysis of the context blocking hypothesis. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 181–215). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula J. Durlach
    • 1
  • Laurel M. McQuoid
    • 1
  • Glenn Regehr
    • 1
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityWest, HamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations