A Test of the Negative Discriminative Stimulus as a Reinforcer of Observing

Dinsmoor, James A.; Browne, Michael; Lawrence, Charles E.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1972.18-79

Cited by 115 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, observing responses would have been reinforced continuously during fading but only intermittently during traditional discrimination training. By the end of the training in Condition B, then , observing behavior would have been strengthened more by fading than by traditional discrimination training (deLorge & Clark, I 971 ; Dinsmoor, Browne, & Lawrence, 1972). In Condition C, it follows that subjects should observe the relevant features of the stimuli more readily after fading than after traditional discrimination training and, thus, learn C in fewer trials after fading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced learning of new discriminations after stimulus fading

Fields

1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans learned to name three sets of braille patterns presented visually. After learning a practice set by traditional discrimination training, half the subjects learned a new set by fading, and the remaining subjects learned them by traditional discrimination training. Finally, all subjects learned a third set of new patterns by traditional discrimination training. Subjects who learned the second set by fading learned the third set faster than did subjects who learned the second set by traditional means. This effect was explained in terms of the differential strengthening of observing behavior by fading and by traditional discrimination training.To what extent will a history of errorless learning influence the learning of subsequent discrimination? The question was addressed by using transfer designs in which an initial discrimination had been established by traditional discrimination training or by procedures that produced errorless acquisition of stimulus control. A subsequent discrimination was established by traditional discrimination training. Differences in learning the subsequent discrimination were then attributed to the procedures used to establish the stimulus control in the initial discrimination and/or to the by-products of initial training that would generalize to the subsequent discrimination.Cheney and Stein (1974), Gollin and Savoy (1968), Robinson and Storm (1978), and Schilmoeller, Schilmoeller, Etzel, and Lelslanc (1979) used a variety of procedures to establish stimulus control errorlessly in the initial discrimination. In some cases, enhancement of subsequent discrimination learning was observed; in others, retardation occurred . In all of the experiments , however, the same stimuli were used in the initial and subsequent discriminations. No data are available to assess the effects of a stimulus fading history upon acquisition of control by new stimuli used in subsequent discrimination . The following experiment demonstrated such an effect and provided information regarding some possible explanations of the observed effects. METHOD SubjectsEleven male and six female college students were randomly assigned to two experimental groups. Three women and six men were in one group, while three women and five men were in the other. ApparatusSubjects were seated at a table facing a portable motion picture screen that was 2 m away. A reinforcement counter (BRS/LVE Model 551-25) was on the table facing the subject . The letters that were the available response alternatives for each part of the experiment were printed on a cardboard strip, 7.5 cm high x 30 em long, which rested on top of the reinforcement counter. Two Kodak Carousel projectors and a shutter to control stimulus presentations were located behind the subject .The stimuli consisted of English capital letters and their braille equivalents, presented as black forms on white backgrounds. Letters and braille symbols were : presented alone or were superimposed and presented as compounds in various parts of the experiment. When projected, the s...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced learning of new discriminations after stimulus fading

Fields

1980

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these experiments, results have been mixed. Dinsmoor et al (1972) found a small and inconsistent increase in observing when only S+ could be produced. However, using rhesus monkeys as subjects, Lieberman (1972) found a decrease in observing rates when S -was omitted, and a similar result has been found using pigeons (Mueller & Dinsmoor, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In addition, however, the occurrence of the responses themselves demanded explanation. In Wyckoff's procedure (1969), in similar operant procedures (e.g., Dinsmoor, Browne, & Lawrence, 1972), and in procedures using an E maze (e.g., Prokasy, 1956), the occurrence of observing responses did not affect the delivery of food. For example, in operant procedures using interval-based food reinforcement schedules, subjects respond at rates sufficient to collect all food reinforcers, regardless of the presence or absence of the stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Negative Stimulus Presentations on Observing‐response Rates

Mueller

Dinsmoor

1986

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of observing differ in predicting whether or not a signal for absence of reinforcement (S-) is capable of reinforcing observing responses. Experiments in which S-was first removed from and then restored to the procedure have yielded mixed results. The present experiments suggest that failure to control for the direct effect of presenting S-may have been responsible. Pigeons and operant procedures were used. Experiment 1 showed that presentations of S-, even when not contingent on observing, can raise the rate of an observing response that was reinforced only by presentations of a signal (S+) that accompanied a schedule of food delivery. Experiment 2 showed that this effect resulted from bursts of responding that followed offsets of S-. Experiment 3 showed that, when the presence of S-was held constant, lower rates occurred when S-was dependent on, rather than independent of, observing. These results support theories that characterize S-as incapable of reinforcing observing responses.

show abstract

“…The present experiment employed pigeons in an observing paradigm and sought to determine whether spatial information would be reinforcing if it indicated which of two keys must be pecked to produce food. Previous experiments employing pigeons have shown that the temporal information provided when the observing response produces an S+ is necessary to support the observing response, whereas production of an S-suppresses pigeons' observing responses (e_g., Dinsmoor, Browne, & Lawrence, 1972;Mulvaney, Dinsmoor, JWaideh, & Hughes, 1974;but see Lieberman, 1972, or Schrier, Thompson, & Spector, 1980, for their quite different conclusions when monkeys are used as the subjects). Both the "information hypothesis" and conditioned reinforcement hypotheses of observing predict that certain kinds of temporal information (Le_, when the S+ occurs) will support observing_ The "information hypothesis" of observing, however, seems to be based on the idea that observing responses may be acquired and maintained when they provide the organism with information of any sort about primary reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal vs. spatial information as a reinforcer of observing

Bowe

Dinsmoor

1981

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditioned reinforcement interpretations of observing behavior predict that certain kinds of temporal information, but not spatial information, will reinforce observing. In a free operant observing experiment, pigeons pecked the left and right keys of a three-key panel to produce intermittent food deliveries_ Pecks to the center key (observing responses) produced stimulus displays providing some birds with spatial information (which side key to peck) and other birds with temporal information (which component of a mixed variable-intervalJextinction schedule was operating). Four of the six birds that could produce temporal information did so, whereas none of the six birds that could produce spatial information did so. The "information hypothesis" of observing apparently cannot explain this result_The term "information" is widely employed among animal learning and behavior theorists in a commonsense, qualitative way to denote a variety of relations between the informing event and the event about which the information is given. Specifically, the informing event can allow the organism to "know about," "expect," or "behave appropriately with respect to" the where, when, how, what, and, perhaps, the why of another event. But, in practice, the term "information" has been used almost exclusively to denote something about the ''when'' of an event (Le., temporal information), as, for example, in the early work by Miller (1962, 1963) or in the writings of Rescorla and his colleagues (Rescorla, 1972;Rescorla & Wagner, 1972; but see Rescorla, 1978, for what seems to be a recent attempt to broaden his use of the term)_ In Rescorla's work, a stimulus appeared in an organism's environment "predicting" an event that was important for the organism (e.g., food or shock). Prediction was possible because the probability that the event would occur (or not occur, in inhibitory conditioning) was greater during or soon after the stimulus than it was during or soon after any other stimulus.The early restriction of the term "information" to temporal relations between events was nearly inevitable because theory and research in conditioning had emphasized the variable of temporal contiguity. Nevertheless, "information" now is usually meant to include relations other than temporal ones, thus providing the theorist with a useful integrating concepL Unfortunately, the meaning of "information" has been overextended by some theorists to include not only a discriminative/ informative function that relates informing events to aspects of other events, but also a reinforcing function_ Miller (1962, 1963) discussed the reinforcing function and the discriminative/informative function of the stimuli in their experiments and argued that the latter was necessary for the former-Their argument was

show abstract

A Test of the Negative Discriminative Stimulus as a Reinforcer of Observing

Cited by 115 publications

References 5 publications

Enhanced learning of new discriminations after stimulus fading

Enhanced learning of new discriminations after stimulus fading

The Effect of Negative Stimulus Presentations on Observing‐response Rates

Temporal vs. spatial information as a reinforcer of observing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About