Abstract
Little responding develops to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that is placed in a random relation to an unconditioned stimulus (US). However, if the USs not preceded by that CS are themselves signaled by another stimulus, then the CS does come to elicit responding. This result has been attributed (e.g., by Durlach, 1983) to the signal’s blocking of conditioning to background cues that otherwise would prevent conditioning of the CS. However, Goddard and Jenkins (1987) have suggested the alternative that signaling the USs promotes responding due to the adventitious creation of periods of signaled nonreinforcement. Two experiments were conducted to assess this alternative, involving an autoshaping preparation in pigeons. In Experiment 1, little responding to a keylight CS presented in a random relation to a food US occurred, despite the explicit presentation of a discrete noise signaling periods of no food in the intertrial interval (ITI). Experiment 2 was designed to replicate the procedure of Goddard and Jenkins, in which an auditory stimulus extended throughout the ITI of a random schedule, terminating only prior to extra USs and during the CS. Contrary to their findings, little responding developed to the target CS. However, responding did develop when the sound-free period occurred only prior to the extra USs. These results offer little support for the hypothesis that signaled periods of nonreinforcement promote responding on random schedules. However, they are consistent with the view that signaling of ITI USs acts by preventing conditioning of potentially competitive background cues.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ayres, J. J. B., Benedict, J. O., &Witcher, E. S. (1975). Systematic manipulation of individual events in a truly random control in rats.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,88, 97–103.
Brandon, S. E. (1984). A test of the Wagner-Rescorla model’s prediction of no response decrement in a nondifferential following a differential schedule of reinforcement.Animal Learning & Behavior,12, 137–141.
Durlach, P. J. (1983). Effect of signaling intertriai unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,9, 374–389.
Durlach, P. J. (in press). The role of signals for US absence in the sensitivity of autoshaping to contingency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.
Dweck, C. S., &Wagner, A. R. (1970). Situational cues and correlation between CS and US as determinants of the conditioned emotional response.Psychonomic Science,18, 145–147.
Gamzu, E. R., &Williams, D. R. (1973). Associative factors underlying the pigeon’s key pecking in autoshaping.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,19, 225–232.
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.
Goddard, M. J., &Jenkins, H. M. (1987). Effect of signaling extra unconditioned stimuli on autoshaping.Animal Learning & Behavior,15, 40–46.
Hall, G., Mackintosh, N. J., Goodall, G., &Dal Martello, M. (1977). Loss of control by a less valid or by a less salient stimulus compounded with a better predictor of reinforcement.Learning & Motivation,8, 145–158.
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.
Jenkins, H. M., &Lambos, W. A. (1983). Tests of two explanations of response elimination by noncontingent reinforcement.Animal Learning & Behavior,11, 302–308.
Kremer, E. F. (1978). The Rescorla-Wagner model: Losses of associative strength in compound conditioned stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,4, 22–36.
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.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variation in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
Miller, R. R., &Schachtman, T. R. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implication for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 51–88). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of the CS in fear conditioning.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,66, 1–5.
Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Informational variables in Pavlovian conditioning. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 6, pp. 1–46). New York: Academic Press.
Rescorla, R. A. (in press). Redundant treatments of neutral and excitatory stimuli in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasky (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Robbins, S. J. (1988). Role of context in performance on a random schedule in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 413–424.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 83-08176 to Robert A. Rescorla. Portions of the research were completed during Steven J. Robbins’s tenure as a National Science Foundation predoctoral fellow.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Robbins, S.J., Rescorla, R.A. The role of signaled periods of nonreinforcement in responding on a random schedule in autoshaping. Animal Learning & Behavior 17, 304–310 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209803
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209803