Abstract
The effects of stimulus-incentive (S:IS) contingency, stimulus-response-incentive (S:R:IS) contingency, and stimulus-no-response-incentive (S:R:IS) contingency on the acquisition and maintenance of an instrumental approach-contact response in the rat were studied. The experiment, concerned mainly with the temporal distribution of responses, showed that (1) the S:IS contingency and the S:R:IS contingency produced the same temporal distribution of responses; (2) the S:R:IS contingency produced higher rates of response than the S:IS contingency; (3) the negative S:R:IS contingency did not completely eradicate already established responses; and (4)post-CS responding occurred on reinforced trials. Consideration of these results indicates that the critical factor determining the higher rates of response under the S:R:IS contingency may be the S:R:IS occasions experienced only in the instrumental procedure.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bindra, D. A unified account of classical conditioning and operant training. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II Current theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.
Bindra, D. A motivational view of learning, performance, and behavior modification.Psychological Review, 1974,81, 199–213.
Bindra, D. A theory of intelligent behavior. New York: Wiley, 1976.
Bolles, R. C. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning.Psychological Review, 1972,72, 394–409.
Brown, P. L., &Jenkins, H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s keypeck.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968,11, 1–8.
Estes, W. K. New Perspectives on some old issues in association theory. In N. J. Mackintosh & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Fundamental issues in associative learning. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University Press, 1969.
Estes, W. K. Reinforcement in human behavior.American Scientist, 1972,60, 723–729.
Falk, J. L. The nature and determinants of adjunctive behavior.Physiology and Behavior, 1971,6, 577–588.
Gamzu, E., &Schwartz, B. The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus contingent and response-independent food presentation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973,19, 65–72.
Gamzu, E. &Williams, D. R. Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response.Science, 1971,171, 923–925.
Hearst, E., &Jenkins, H. M. Signtracking: The stimulusreinforcer relation and directed action. Austin, Texas: Psychonomic Society, 1974.
Lajoie, J., &Bindra, D. An interpretation of autoshaping and related phenomena in terms of stimulus-incentive contingencies alone.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1976,30, 157–173.
Locurto, C., Terrace, H. S., &Gibbon, J. Autoshaping, random control, and omission training in the rat.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1976,26, 451–462.
Moore, B. R. The role of directed Pavlovian reactions in simple instrumental learning in the pigeon. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevension-Hinde (Eds.),Constraints on Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Schwartz, B., &Gamzu, E. Pavlovian control of operant behavior: An analysis of autoshaping and its implications for operant conditioning. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.),Handbook of operant behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Pp. 53–97.
Schwartz, B., &Williams, D. R. The role of the response reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972,17, 351–357.
Segal, E. F. Induction and the provenance of operants. In R. M. Gilbert & J. R. Millenson (Eds.),Reinforcement. Behavioral analyses. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Shapiro, M. M. Respondent salivary conditioning during operant lever pressing in dogs.Science, 1960,132, 619–620.
Staddon, J. E. R., &Simmelhag, V. L. The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior.Psychological Review, 1971,78, 13–43.
Stiers, M., &Silberberg, A. Lever-contact responses in rats: Automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974,22, 497–506.
Walker, E. L. Reinforcement—“the one ring.” In J. T. Tapp (Ed.),Reinforcement and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Wasserman, E. A. Pavlovian conditioning with heat reinforcement produces stimulus-directed pecking in chicks.Science, 1973,181, 875–877.
Wasserman, E. A., Hunter, N. B., Gutowski, K. A., &Bader, S.A. Autoshaping chicks with heat reinforcement: The role of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975,104, 158–169.
Williams, D. R., &Williams, H. Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: Sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969,12, 511–520.
Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
Woodruff, G., Conner, N., Gamzu, E., &Williams, D. R. Associative interaction: Joint control of key pecking by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1977,28, 133–144.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is based on portions of a dissertation by J. Lajoie for the degree of PhD from McGill University. The work was supported by Grant A7918 from the National Research Council of Canada and by a grant from the Quebec Ministry of Education to Dalbir Bindra.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lajoie, J., Bindra, D. Contributions of stimulus-incentive and stimulus-response-incentive contingencies to response acquisition and maintenance. Animal Learning & Behavior 6, 301–307 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209618
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209618