Abstract
Contemporary time accumulation models make the unique prediction that acquisition of a conditioned response will be equally rapid with partial and continuous reinforcement, if the time between conditioned stimuli is held constant. To investigate this, acquisition of conditioned responding was examined in pigeon autoshaping under conditions of 100% and 25% reinforcement, holding intertrial interval constant. Contrary to what was predicted, evidence for slowed acquisition in partially reinforced animals was observed with several response measures. However, asymptotic performance was superior with 25% reinforcement. A switching of reinforcement contingencies after initial acquisition did not immediately affect responding. After further sessions, partial reinforcement augmented responding, whereas continuous reinforcement did not, irrespective of an animal’s reinforcement history. Subsequent training with a novel stimulus maintained the response patterns. These acquisition results generally support associative, rather than time accumulation, accounts of conditioning.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Amsel, A. (1958). The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations.Psychological Bulletin,55, 102–119.
Amsel, A. (1967). Partial reinforcement effects on vigor and persistence. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Barela, P. B. (1999). Theoretical mechanisms underlying the trialspacing effect in Pavlovian fear conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 177–193.
Bouton, M. E., &Sunsay, C. (2003). Importance of trials versus accumulating time across trials in partially reinforced appetitive conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,29, 62–77.
Crawford, L. L., Steirn, J. N., &Pavlik, W. B. (1985). Within-and between-subjects partial reinforcement effects with an autoshaped response using Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica).Animal Learning & Behavior,13, 85–92.
Gallistel, C. R., &Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning.Psychological Review,107, 289–344.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. (1981). Spreading associations in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.
Gibbon, J., Farrell, L., Locurto, C. M., Duncan, H. J., &Terrace, H. S. (1980). Partial reinforcement in autoshaping with pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 45–59.
Gonzalez, F. A. (1973). Effects of partial reinforcement (25%) in an autoshaping procedure.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,2, 299–301.
Grau, J. W., &Rescorla, R. A. (1985). Role of context in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,10, 324–332.
Hilgard, E. R., &Marquis, D. G. (1940).Conditioning and learning. New York: Appleton-Century.
Humphreys, L. G. (1940). Distributed practice in the development of the conditioned eyelid reaction.Journal of General Psychology,22, 379–385.
Killeen, P. R. (1995). Economics, ecologies, and mechanics: The dynamics of responding under conditions of varying motivation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,64, 405–431.
Lattal, K. M. (1999). Trial and intertrial durations in Pavlovian conditioning: Issues of learning and performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,25, 433–450.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974).The psychology of animal learning. New York: Academic Press.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
McSweeney, F. K., &Roll, J. M. (1998). Do animals satiate or habituate to repeatedly presented reinforcers?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 428–442.
McSweeney, F. K., Swindell, S., &Weatherly, J. N. (1996). Withinsession changes in responding during autoshaping and automaintenance procedures.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,66, 51–61.
Papini, M. R., &Overmier, J. B. (1984). Autoshaping in pigeons: Effects of partial reinforcement on acquisition and extinction.Revista Interamericana de Psicología,18, 75–86.
Papini, M. R., &Overmier, J. B. (1985). Partial reinforcement and autoshaping of the pigeon’s key-peck behavior.Learning & Motivation,16, 109–123.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Behavioral studies of Pavlovian conditioning.Annual Review of Neuroscience,11, 329–352.
Rescorla, R. A., &Durlach, P. J. (1987). The role of context in intertrial interval effects in autoshaping.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39B, 35–48.
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. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning: II. Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schlosberg, H. (1934). Conditioned responses in the white rat.Journal of Genetic Psychology,45, 303–335.
Spence, K. W. (1960).Behavior theory and learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sutton, R. S., &Barto, A. G. (1990). Time-derivative models of Pavlovian reinforcement. In M. Gabriel & J. Moore (Eds.),Learning and computational neuroscience: Foundations of adaptive networks (pp. 497–537). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Wagner, A. R., &Brandon, S. E. (1989). Evolution of a structured connectionist model of Pavlovian conditioning (AESOP). In S. B. Klein & R. R. Mowrer (Eds.),Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 149–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wasserman, E. A., Deich, J. D., Hunter, N. B., &Nagamatsu, L. S. (1977). Analyzing the random control procedure: Effects of paired and unpaired CSs and USs on autoshaping the chick’s key peck with heat reinforcement.Learning & Motivation,8, 467–487.
Wasserman, E. A., Hunter, N. B., Gutowski, K. A., &Bader, S. A. (1975). Autoshaping chicks with heat reinforcement: The role of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,104, 158–169.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01 MH 67858. I gratefully thank Robert Rescorla for help at every stage, Matt Lattal for advice and discussion, and Andre Roussin for assistance in data collection.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gottlieb, D.A. Acquisition with partial and continuous reinforcement in pigeon autoshaping. Animal Learning & Behavior 32, 321–334 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196031
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196031