Abstract
Scalar expectancy theory (SET) predicts that postacquisition manipulations of background expectancy should alter conditioned performance. An experiment was performed to test the application of this hypothesis to an explanation of the “temporal context” effect in trace conditioning. Pigeons were trained on an inhibitory trace conditioning procedure and then subjected to postacquisition manipulations of background expectancy. Nonreinforced exposure to the training apparatus eliminated conditioned withdrawal, exposure to USs under very long interreinforcer intervals slightly weakened conditioned withdrawal, and home-cage confinement had no effect on conditioned withdrawal. These results are discussed in terms of the predictions of SET and the role of background excitation in conditioned inhibition.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Balsam, P. (1984a): Bringing the background into the foreground: The role of contextual cues in autoshaping. In M. Commons, R. Herrnstein, & A. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: (Vol. 3). Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Balsam, P. (1984b). Relative time in trace conditioning. In J. Gibbon & L. Allan (Eds.),Timing and time perception. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Balsam, P. (1985). The functions of context in learning and performance. In P. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.),Context and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Balsam, P., &Schwartz, A. (1981). Rapid contextual conditioning in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 382–393.
Bottjer, S. (1982). Conditioned approach and withdrawal behavior in pigeons: Effects of a novel extraneous stimulus during acquisition and extinction.Learning & Motivation,13, 44–67.
Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber’s law in animal timing.Psychological Review,84, 279–325.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. (1981). Spreading association in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219–253). New York: Academic Press.
Hearst, E., Bottjer, S., &Walker, E. (1980). Conditioned approach-withdrawal behavior and some signal-food relations in pigeons: Performance and positive vs. negative “associative strength.”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,16, 183–186.
Hearst, E., &Franklin, S. (1977). Positive and negative relations between a signal and food: Approach-withdrawal to the signal.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 37–52.
Jenkins, H., Barnes, R., &Barrera, F. (1981). Why autoshaping depends on trial spacing. In C. Locurto, H. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.),Autoshaping and conditioning theory. New York: Academic Press.
Kaplan, P. (1984). Importance of relative temporal parameters in trace autoshaping: From excitation to inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,10, 113–126.
Kaplan, P., &Hearst, E. (1985). Contextual control and excitatory vs. inhibitory learning: Studies of extinction, reinstatement, and interference. In P. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.),Context and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Konorski, J. (1948).Conditioned reflexes and neuron organization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LoLordo, V., &Fairless, J. (1985). Pavlovian conditioned inhibition. The literature since 1969. In R. Miller & N. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Inhibition and contingencies.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Lucas, G. A., Deich, J. D., &Wasserman, E. A. (1981). Trace autoshaping: Acquisition, maintenance, and path dependence at long trace intervals.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,36, 61–74.
Miller, R., &Schachtman, T. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implications for the content of associations and the epiphenomenal nature of conditioned inhibition. In R. Miller & N. Spear (Eds),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, R., & Spear, N. (Eds.) (1985).Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rescorla, R., Duriach, P., &Grau, J. (1985) Contextual learning in Pavlovtan conditioning. In P. Balsam & A. Tonne (Eds.),Context and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory in animal behavior. In N. Spear & R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A., &Larew, M. (1985). Opponent processes and Pavlovian inhibition. In R. Miller & N. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Wasserman, E., Franklin, S., &Hearst, E. (1974). Pavlovian appetitive contingencies and approach vs. withdrawal to conditioned stimuli in pigeons.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,86, 616–627.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was made possible by an NIMH postdoctoral traineeship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaplan, P.S. Explaining the effects of relative time in trace conditioning: A preliminary test of a comparator hypothesis. Animal Learning & Behavior 13, 233–238 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200015
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200015