Abstract
Weak behavioral control (blocking) occurs when a target stimulus (X) is paired with an outcome in the presence of a well-established signal for the outcome (i.e., a blocking stimulus). Conventional Pavlovian conditioning theories explain this effect by asserting that a discrepancy between expected and experienced outcomes is necessary for learning about X and that no such discrepancy exists in blocking situations. These theories anticipate that the effect of additional well-established signals for the unconditioned stimulus (US) should be additive. In two conditioned barpress suppression experiments using rats as subjects, the opposite result was observed. Experiment 1 provided evidence that blocking was reduced when two blocking stimuli were present during X-US pairings relative to when one blocking stimulus was present. Experiment 2 elaborated on the mechanisms underlying the observations in Experiment 1, while explaining the discrepancy between the results of Experiment 1 and prior reports of the additivity of blocking stimuli. nt]mis|The research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 33881.
Article PDF
References
Blaisdell, A. P., Gunther, L. M., & Miller, R. R. (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the blocking CS. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 63–76.
Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., & Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65–117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Espinet, A., Iraola, J. A., Bennett, C. H., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Inhibitory association between neutral stimuli in flavor-aversion conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 23, 361–368.
Kamin, L. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–33). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Kremer, E. (1978). The Rescorla-Wagner model: Losses in associative strength in compound conditioned stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 22–36.
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 research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning internal representations by error propagation. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1: Foundations (pp. 319–364). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schachtman, T. R., Kasprow, W. J., Chee, M. A., & Miller, R. R. (1985). Blocking but not conditioned inhibition results when an added stimulus is reinforced in compound with multiple pretrained stimuli. American Journal of Psychology, 98, 283–295.
Stout, S. C., & Miller, R. R. (2007). Sometimes-competing retrieval (SOCR): A formalization of the comparator hypothesis. Psychological Review, 114, 759–783.
Urcelay, G. P., & Miller, R. R. (2006). Counteraction between overshadowing and degraded contingency treatments: Support for the extended comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 21–32.
Wheeler, D. S., & Miller, R. R. (in press). Determinants of cue interactions. Behavioral Processes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Witnauer, J.E., Urcelay, G.P. & Miller, R.R. Reduced blocking as a result of increasing the number of blocking cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 651–655 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.651
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.651