Abstract
Random presentations of keylights and food retarded acquisition and suppressed asymptotic rates of keypecking in autoshaping. Sequences of 10 sessions of random training alternated with 10 sessions of autoshaping resulted in poor performance (in terms of both the acquisition and asymptotic indices) relative to a group that received sequences of CS-only (rather than random) training alternating with autoshaping. When the birds that previously were trained with the random sequence were exposed to CS-alone extinction, retardation of acquisition was alleviated but the asymptotic suppression was not (Experiment 1). Pigeons with a history of autoshaping without prior random training showed no asymptotic suppression when exposed to the random procedure. These birds, when switched between two-session sequences of random training alternating with two-session sequences of autoshaping, were able to (1) surpass pigeons that received CS-only rather than random treatment in terms of asymptotic levels of responding in autoshaping, and (2) showed improvement in extinction performance with repeated random/autoshaping sequences (Experiment 2). Detailed observations of pigeons in random training showed that stereotypic activity behaviors were acquired, and these generally persisted in autoshaping; the degree of change in these behaviors was related to asymptotic rates of keypecking in autoshaping (Experiment 3). The same kinds of behaviors were observed when pigeons initially were autoshaped, and these persisted in subsequent random and fixed-interval 10-sec training. We suggest that the suppression effect is reflected in activity, conditioned in random training, which persists in autoshaping (especially if the activity is compatible with the kinds of behaviors elicited by the autoshaping contingency itself), and that the effect may be a deficit due to performance factors rather than to associative learning.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adams, C. D. (1982). Variations in the sensitivity of instrumental responding to reinforcer devaluation.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,34B, 77–98.
Anger, D., &Anger, K. (1976). Behavior changes during repeated eight-day extinctions.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,26, 181–190.
Antonius, J. J. (1951). Response variability in the white rat during conditioning, extinction, and reconditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,42, 273–281.
Balsam, P. D. (1984). Bringing the background to the foreground: The role of contextual cues in autoshaping. In M. Commons, R. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 3. Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Balsam, P. D. (1985). The functions of context in learning and performance. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.),Context and learning (pp. 1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Balsam, P. D., &Schwartz, A. (1981). Rapid contextual conditioning in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,1, 382–393.
Benedict, J. O., &Ayres, J. J. B. (1972). Factors affecting conditioning in the truly random control procedure in the rat.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,78, 323–330.
Boakes, R. A. (1977). Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In H. Davis & M. B. Hurwitz (Eds.),Operant-Pavlovian interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brandon, S. E. (1981). Key-light-specific associations and factors determining key pecking in noncontingent schedules.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 348–361.
Brandon, S. E., Satake, N., &Bitterman, M. E. (1982). Performance of goldfish trained on multiple schedules of response-independent reinforcement.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,96, 467–475.
Brogden, W. J., Lipman, E. A., &Culler, E. (1938). The role of incentive in conditioning and extinction.American Journal of Psychology,51, 109–117.
Bullock, D. H., &Smith, W. C. (1953). An effect of repeated conditioning-extinction sessions upon operant strength.Journal of Experimental Psychology,46, 349–352.
Buzzard, J. H., &Hake, D. F. (1984). Stimulus control of schedule-induced activity in pigeons during multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,42, 191–209.
Catania, A. C., &Keller, K. J. (1981). Contingency, contiguity, correlation, and the concept of causation. In P. Harzem & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.),Predictability, correlation, and contiguity (pp. 125–167). New York: Wiley.
Clark, F. C. (1964). Effects of repeated VI reinforcement and extinction upon operant behavior.Psychological Reports,15, 943–955.
Couvillon, P., Brandon, S. E., Woodard, W. T., &Bitterman, M. E. (1980). Performance of pigeons in patterned sequences of rewarded and nonrewarded trials.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,6, 137–154.
Davis, H., Hubbard, J., &Reberg, D. (1973). A methodological critique of research on “superstitious” behavior.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,1, 447–449.
Durlach, P. J. (1982). Direct measurement of context conditioning in the pigeon.Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association. Baltirnore, MD: Eastern Psychological Association.
Durlach, P. (1984). Pavlovian learning and performance when CS and US are uncorrelated. In M. Commons, R. Herrnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analysis of behavior: Vol. 3. Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Durlach, P. (1986). Explicitly unpaired procedure as a response elimination technique in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,12, 172–185.
Engberg, L. A., Hansen, G., Welker, R. L., &Thomas, D. R. (1972). Acquisition of key-pecking via autoshaping as a function of prior experience: “Learned laziness?”Science,178, 923–925.
Farley, J. (1980). Automaintenance, contrast, and contingencies: Effects of local versus overall and prior versus impending reinforcement context.Learning & Motivation,11, 19–48.
Farwell, B. J., &Ayres, J. J. B. (1979). Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations in the control of conditioned appetitive headpoking (“goal-tracking”) in rats.Learning & Motivation,10, 295–312.
Gamzu, E. R., &Williams, D. R. (1971). Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response.Science,171, 923–925.
Gamzu, E. R., &Williams, D. R. (1973). Associative factors underlying the pigeon’s key pecking in autoshaping procedures.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,19, 225–232.
Gamzu, E., Williams, D. R., &Schwartz, B. (1973). Pitfalls of organismic concepts: “Learned laziness?”Science,181, 367–368.
Gibbon, J., Locurto, C. M., &Terrace, H. S. (1975). Signal-food contingency and signal frequency in a continuous trials auto-shaping paradigm.Animal Learning & Behavior,3, 317–324.
Gibbon, J., Baldock, M., Locurto, C., Gold, L., &Terrace, H. S. (1977). Trial and intertriai duration in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 264–284.
Gibbon, J., &Balsam, P. (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.
Guthrie, E. R. (1935).The psychology of learning. New York: Harper.
Hall, G., &Honig, W. K. (1974). Stimulus control after extradimensional training in pigeons: A comparison of contingent and noncontingent training procedures.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,87, 945–952.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1966). Superstition: A corollary of the principles of operant conditioning. In W. K. Honig (Ed.),Operant behavior: Areas of research and application (pp. 33–51). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Holland, P. C. (1977). Conditioned stimulus as a determinant of the form of the Pavlovian conditioned response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,3, 77–104.
Innis, N. K., Simmelhag-Grant, V. L., &Staddon, J. E. R. (1983). Behavior induced by periodic food delivery: The effects of interfood interval.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,39, 309–322.
James, W. (1890).The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
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. New York: Academic Press.
Jenkins, H. M., &Lambos, W. A. (1983). Tests of two explanations of response elimination by noncontingent reinforcement.Animal Learning & Behavior,11, 302–308.
Killeen, P. R., Hanson, S. J., &Osborne, S. R. (1978). Arousal: Its genesis and manifestations as response rate.Psychological Review,85, 571–581.
Kimble, G. A., &Perlmutter, L. C. (1970). The problem of volition.Psychological Review,77, 361–384.
Konorski, J. (1967).Integrative activity of the brain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lindblom, L. L., &Jenkins, H. M. (1981). Responses eliminated by noncontingent or negatively contingent reinforcement recover in extinction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 175–190.
Locurto, C. M., Travers, T., Terrace, H. S., &Gibbon, J. (1980). Physical restraint produces rapid acquisition of the pigeon’s key peck.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,34, 13–21.
LoLordo, V. M., McMillan, J. C., &Riley, A. L. (1974). The effects upon food-reinforced pecking and treadle-pressing of auditory and visual signals for response-independent food.Learning & Motivation,5, 24–41.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1973). Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),Constraints on 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.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1983).Conditioning and associative learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, C. L. (1894).An introduction to comparative psychology. London: Walter Scott.
North, A. J., &Morton, M. L. (1962). Successive acquisitions and extinctions of an instrumental response.Journal of Comparative & Phsyiological Psychology,55, 974–977.
Patterson, J., &Overmier, J. B. (1981). A transfer of control test for contextual associations.Animal Learning & Behavior,9, 316–321.
Pavlov, I. (1927).Conditioned reflexes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pear, J. J., &Eldridge, G. D. (1984). The operant-respondent distinction: Future directions.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,42, 453–467.
Randich, A., &Lolordo, V. M. (1979). Associative and nonassociative theories of the UCS preexposure phenomenon: Implications for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Bulletin,86, 523–548.
Rashotte, M. R., Griffin, R. W., &Sisk, C. L. (1977). Second-order conditioning of the pigeon’s keypeck.Animal Learning & Behavior,5, 25–38.
Reberg, D., Innis, N. K., Mann, B., &Eizenga, C. (1978). “Superstitious” behaviour resulting from periodic response-independent presentations of food or water.Animal Behaviour,26, 507–519.
Rescorla, R. A., Durlach, P. J., &Grau, J. W. (1985). Context learning in Pavlovian conditioning. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.),Context and learning (pp. 23–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Schwartz, B. (1980). Development of complex, stereotyped behavior in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,33, 153–166.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). “Superstition” in the pigeon.Journal of Experimental Psychology,38, 168–172.
Staddon, J. E. R., &Simmelhag, V. L. (1971). The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior.Psychological Review,78, 3–43.
Timberlake, W., &Lucas, G. A. (1985). The basis of superstitious behavior: Chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,44, 279–299.
Tomie, A. (1976a). Interference with autoshaping by prior context conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 323–334.
Tomie, A. (1976b). Retardation of autoshaping: Control by contextual stimuli.Science,192, 1244–1246.
Tomie, A. (1981).Effect of unpredictable food on 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.
Tomie, A. (1985). Effects of test context on the acquisition of autoshaping to a formerly random keylight or a formerly contextual keylight. In P. D. Balsam & A. Tomie (Eds.),Context and learning (pp. 57–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tomie, A., Hayden, M., &Biehl, D. (1980). Effects of response elimination procedures upon the subsequent reacquisition of autoshaping.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 237–244.
Tomie, A., Murphy, A. L., Fath, S., &Jackson, R. L. (1980). Retardation of autoshaping following pretraining with unpredictable food: Effects of changing the context between pretraining and testing.Learning & Motivation,11, 117–134.
Tomie, A., Rhor-Stafford, I., &Schwam, K. I. (1981). The retarding effect of the TRC response elimination procedure upon the subsequent reacquisition of autoshaping. Comparison of between- and within-subjects assessment procedures and the evaluation of the role of back-ground contextual stimuli.Animal Learning & Behavior,9, 230–238.
Wagner, A. R., &Larew, M. (1985). Opponent processes and Pavlovian inhibition. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 233–265). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, A. R., &Larew, M. (1985). Opponent processes and Pavlovian inhibition. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 233–265). Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
Warden, C. J., &Lubow, L. (1942). Effect of performance without reward on the retention of the maze habit in the white rat.Journal of Genetic Psychology,60, 321–328.
Williams, D. R., &Williams, H. (1969). Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: Sustained pecking despite contingent nonreinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,12, 511–520.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brandon, S.E., Paul, H. The effects of activity conditioned in random CS/US training on performance in autoshaping. Animal Learning & Behavior 15, 263–284 (1987). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205020
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205020