An examination of the relationship between expectancy learning and preference conditioning

Campbell, David H.; Capaldi, Elizabeth D.; Sheffer, Joan D.; Bradford, John P.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(88)90011-2

Cited by 23 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If we assume that, after training with sucrose as the US, hungry rats principally show the effects of flavor-nutrient learning at test, whereas sated rats show principally the effects of flavor-taste learning, then the results reported by Garcia-Burgos et al (2013) can be interpreted as indicating that flavor-nutrient learning is susceptible to latent inhibition, whereas flavor-taste learning is not. This interpretation accords with the widely held view that flavor-nutrient learning is a form of expectancy learning that will obey the standard laws of conditioning, but that flavor-taste learning involves a different mechanism (e.g., one that produces a change in the hedonic properties of the flavor) that operates according to different laws (see, e.g., Campbell, Capaldi, Sheffer, & Bradford, 1988;De Houwer, Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001;Drucker, Ackroff, & Sclafani, 1994;Pearce, 2002).…”

supporting

confidence: 84%

Latent inhibition in flavor-preference conditioning: Effects of motivational state and the nature of the reinforcer

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, rats received pairings of the flavor of almond with either fructose or maltodextrin, and the conditioned preference for almond was then tested. In each experiment, half of the rats had received prior exposure to almond on its own, and half had received no preexposure. In Experiment 1, in which the rats were hungry during the test, the preference was greater in the nonpreexposed subjects, both for those trained with fructose and those trained with maltodextrin; that is, latent inhibition was obtained with both reinforcers. In Experiment 2, in which the rats were not food deprived prior to the test, not only was there no latent inhibition with either of the reinforcers, but, for both, the preference was greater for preexposed than for nonpreexposed subjects. These results give no support to the proposal that different types of reinforcer generate different types of learning. They are, however, consistent with the proposal that different types of learning control behavior when a rat is hungry and when it is not, and that the form that generates the preference in the latter case is not susceptible to the latent inhibition effect.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 84%

Latent inhibition in flavor-preference conditioning: Effects of motivational state and the nature of the reinforcer

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was not simply due to the insensitivity of the measure of the subject's knowledge of the flavorsolution associations ; when color rather than flavor cues were used, the subjects could reliably report the colorsolution pairings even though these pairings did not alter the hedonic responses to the colors themselves . Campbell, Capaldi, Sheffer, and Bradford (1988) have claimed that conditioned flavor preferences and cuing functions can also be dissociated in rats .…”

Section: Determination Of Outcome Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

Motivational control of goal-directed action

Dickinson

Balleine

1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

927

675

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The control of goal-directed, instrumental actions by primary motivational states, such as hunger and thirst, is mediated by two processes . The first is engaged by the Pavlovian association between contextual or discriminative stimuli and the outcome or reinforcer presented during instrumental training . Such stimuli exert a motivational influence on instrumental performance that depends upon the relevance of the associated outcome to the current motivational state of the agent . Moreover, the motivational effects of these stimuli operate in the absence of prior experience with the outcome under the relevant motivational state . The second, instrumental, process is mediated by knowledge of the contingency between the action and its outcome and controls the value assigned to this outcome . In contrast to the Pavlovian process, motivational states do not influence the instrumental process directly ; rather, the agent has to learn about the value of an outcome in a given motivational state by exposure to it while in that state . This incentive learning is similar in certain respects to the acquisition of "cathexes" envisaged by Tolman (1949aTolman ( , 1949b .The general adaptive significance of the capacity for goal-directed action is so obvious as to require little or no comment. It is this capacity that allows us and other animals to control our environment in the service of our desires and needs. And yet, if asked the most simple questions about this capacity, such as why does an animal perform an instrumental action for a food reward more readily when hungry rather than sated, a contemporary psychologist could tell us little more than Hull (1943) or Tolman (1949aTolman ( , 1949b nearly half a century ago. The fact is that the study of the psychological processes controlling the performance of simple, goal-directed, instrumental actions by basic primary motivational states has been neglected over the intervening decades.It is true that we know much more about the neurophysiological and chemical mechanisms regulating consummatory behavior, such as eating, drinking, and copulating, and indeed about the major role of learning in such behaviors. A contemporary psychologist could also tell us much, at least on a functional level, about how instrumental behavior adapts to schedule and foraging constraints, and indeed about the effects of motivational variables on such adaptation . Moreover, there is an extensive literature on the psychological resources brought to bear in solving complex problems and decisions in the service of cognitive goals . But even so, we should search in vain among the literature for a consensus about the psychological processes by which primary motivational states, such as hunger and thirst, regulate simple goal-directed acts . This is the issue that we wish to address in the present paper. GOAL-DIRECTED ACTIONA prerequisite for this discussion is a clear specification of what we mean by "goal directed . " Our conception of a goal-directed action is psychological, being based upon the nature ...

show abstract

“…has repeatedly been paired with a bad-tasting flavor~US!, this formerly neutral flavor will be evaluated as more negative than a neutral fruit flavor that was presented equally often, but was never paired with the bad-tasting flavor~Baeyens, Crombez, Hendrickx, & Eelen, 1995;Baeyens, Eelen, Van den Bergh, & Crombez, 1990!. These hedonic shifts can be demonstrated not only with flavors but also with pictures of human faces~Baeyens, Eelen, Crombez, & Van den Bergh, 1988!, of fountains and of statues~Hammerl & Grabitz, 1996!, olfactory stimuli~Baeyens, Wrzesniewski, De Houwer, & Eelen, 1996!, and words~for an overview: Jaanus, Defares, & Zwaan, 1990 Evaluative conditioning has been distinguished from the more prototypical classical conditioning using orienting0preparatory responses as indices of learning such as eyelid conditioning and electrodermal conditioning~Baeyens, Eelen, et al, 1988;Campbell, Capaldi, Sheffer, & Bradford, 1988; One of the first arguments for this distinction was that evaluative learning is resistant to extinction~Baeyens, Crombez, Van den Bergh, & Eelen, 1988;Baeyens, Eelen, Van den Bergh, & Crombez, 1989!. Unreinforced CS presentations, after acquisition, do not affect the acquired CS valence, whereas conditioned skin conductance responses generally disappear after a sequence of CS-alone presentations~Öhman, 1983!.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Extinction in fear conditioning: Effects on startle modulation and evaluative self‐reports

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A basic feature of human evaluative conditioning is that the reported acquired valence of a previously neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) that has been paired with a valenced unconditioned stimulus (US), is resistant to extinction. The present study investigated whether startle modulation, sometimes presented as an index of acquired valence, reflected this basic feature. In a differential fear conditioning paradigm (n = 38) with an electrocutaneous stimulus as the US, a strong extinction manipulation was conducted by removing the US-electrodes and by extended extinction trials. At the end of extinction, the results corroborated previous findings of evaluative conditioning in that the reported valence for CS+ was still more negative than for CS-, despite disappearance of the differential skin conductance responses. However, startle modulation did not show resistance-to-extinction. Results were discussed in terms of recent conceptualizations of extinction.

show abstract

An examination of the relationship between expectancy learning and preference conditioning

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

Latent inhibition in flavor-preference conditioning: Effects of motivational state and the nature of the reinforcer

Latent inhibition in flavor-preference conditioning: Effects of motivational state and the nature of the reinforcer

Motivational control of goal-directed action

Extinction in fear conditioning: Effects on startle modulation and evaluative self‐reports

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About