Abstract
Contrast in consummatory behavior occurs readily when a less preferred substance follows a preferred substance. A previous experiment indicated that contrast in consummatory behavior may also develop when a less preferred substance precedes a preferred substance in brief daily exposures. In the present experiment, the same animals sometimes received 0.15% saccharin followed, 15 sec later, by 32% sucrose (.15–32) and sometimes received 0.15% saccharin followed by the same 0.15% saccharin solution (.15-.15). One solution pair was given each day, and the two conditions, .15–32 and .15-.15, occurred in alternation across days. The two different solution conditions were correlated with different cues. Saccharin intake from the first tube was lower when the second tube contained 32% sucrose than when it contained .15% saccharin, both in original discrimination training and following a reversal of the cue-solution pairings. These results support the conclusion that contrast in this situation is based on the anticipation of the impending 32% sucrose each day, rather than on a retrograde comparison with the 32% sucrose received the previous day. These data are considered in terms of Pavlovian conditioning outcomes when the CS is a stimulus with hedonic value.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Becker, H. C., &Flaherty, C. F. (1983). Chlordiazepoxide and ethanol additively reduce gustatory negative contrast.Psychopharamacology,80, 35–37.
Capaldi, E. J., Nawrocki, T. M., &Verry, D. R. (1983). The nature of anticipation: An inter- and intraevent process.Animal Learning & Behavior,11, 193–198.
Chen, J. S., &Amsel, A. (1980). Recall (versus recognition) of taste and immunization against aversive taste anticipation based on illness.Science,209, 831–833.
Domjan, M. (1976). Determinants of the enhancement of flavored-water intake by prior exposure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 17–27.
Flaherty, C. F. (1982). Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward.Animal Learning & Behavior,10, 409–440.
Flaherty, C. F., &Checke, S. (1982). Anticipation of incentive gain.Animal Learning & Behavior,10, 177–182.
Flaherty, C. F., &Lombardi, B. R. (1977). Effect of prior differential taste experience on retention of taste quality.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,9, 391–394.
Garcia, J., Hankins, W. G., &Rusiniak, K. W. (1974). Behavioral regulation of the milieu interne in man and rat.Science,185, 824–831.
Garcia, J., &Koelling, R. A. (1966). The relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning.Psychonomic Science,4, 123–124.
Gonzalez, R. C., Fernhoff, D., &David, F. G. (1973). Contrast, resistance to extinction, and forgetting in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,84, 562–571.
Holland, P. C., &Rescorla, R. A. (1975). The effects of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after first- and second-order appetitive conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavioral Processes,1, 355–363.
Hulse, S. H., &O’Leary, D. (1982). Serial pattern learning: Teaching an alphabet to rats.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavioral Processes,8, 260–273.
Jenkins, H. M., Barrera, F. J., Ireland, C., &Woodside, B. (1978). Signal-centered action patterns of dogs in appetitive classical conditioning.Learning and Motivation,9, 272–296.
Lombardi, B. R., &Flaherty, C. F. (1978). Apparent disinhibition of successive but not of simultaneous negative contrast.Animal Learning & Behavior,6, 30–42.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. (1980). A model of Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,66, 1–5.
Rescorla, R. A. (1978). Some implications of a cognitive perspective on Pavlovian conditioning. In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig (Eds.),Cognitive processes in animal behavior, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spear, N. E. (1967). Retention of reinforcer magnitude.Psychological Review,74, 216–234.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, B. A. (1976). Behavioral contrast as a function of the temporal location of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,26, 57–64.
Williams, B. A. (1981). The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,35, 293–310.
Williams, B. A. (1983). Another look at contrast in multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,39, 345–384.
Zener, K. (1937). The significance of behavior accompanying conditioned salivary secretion for theories of the conditioned response.American Journal of Psychology,50, 384–403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Research supported by grants from the Charles and Johanna Busch Memorial Fund and the Rutgers University Research Council. Susan Checke conducted pilot research for this experiment. The idea for a within-subjects experiment arose during a conversation with Ralph Miller of SUNY, Binghamton.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flaherty, C.F., Rowan, G.A. Anticipatory contrast: Within-subjects analysis. Animal Learning & Behavior 13, 2–5 (1985). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213357
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213357