Autocontingencies: A model for subtle behavioral control.

Abstract

In this article we are concerned with the often surprising degree of behavioral control exerted by what are, in many cases, unscheduled and unintended relationships between important experimental events. A distinction is proposed between traditional contingencies (i.e., if event X-then event Y) and a second class of relationships which are termed autocontingencies. The logical relationships which generate autocontingencies are derived from systematic constraints in the distribution of event Y itself, which allow prediction of the subsequent occurrence or absence of event Y.Supportive evidence for behavioral control by autocontingencies is presented from a survey of operant and Pavlovian conditioning procedures which involve both appetitive and aversive stimuli. Autocontingency effects are examined within a variety of situations which include such well-established phenomena as "scalloping" under fixed-interval food schedules, as well as the "reverse scalloping" or negatively accelerated responding which occurs when food-reinforced responding is punished under a fixed-interval schedule. An analysis of several recently published experiments suggests the possibility that subjects may occasionally have become "aware" of an autocpntingency before the experimenter who programmed it did. These experiments, which typically yield puzzling behavioral effects, have often forced the underlying autocontingency into the investigator's attention. Such instances support the notion that autocontingencies involve subtle relationships, despite the fact that their effects are often far from subtle.An additional source of support for and elaboration of the concept of autocontingencies comes from our own conditioned suppression data. We exposed rats to different experimental arrangements of signal and shock. Subjects for whom no signal preceded each shock delivery learned to find "safety" in more subtle features of the experimental situation. For example, these subjects showed reliably increased responding in the brief periods following each shock delivery once they learned that shocks were separated by a minimum 3-min interval. Similarly, a constraint of three shock deliveries per session yielded a "subtle safety signal" and resulted in enhanced responding following offset of the third shock. These data also suggest the function of "need" (i.e., the simultaneous presence of other predictors) in determining the degree of control exerted by autocontingencies. Subjects in our experiment for whom a traditional tone-shock contingency reliably produced warning did not show behavioral control by autocontingencies which were simultaneously available.The use of the term subtle to describe the relationships underlying autocontingencies suggests that a certain degree of neurological sophistication may be necessary to integrate or process the information provided by autocontingencies. Pre-169

CS modality effects in one-trial backward and forward excitatory conditioning as assessed by conditioned suppression of licking in rats

“…Excitatory backward conditioning is of major interest because its existence seems to argue strongly against the widely accepted view that a CS must signal or predict the onset of a US in order to gain excitatory conditioned strength. One-trial procedures in general are interesting because: (1) they eliminate complications possibly arising from the learning of "autocontingencies" (Davis, Memmott, & Hurwitz, 1975), that is, learning that USs predict other USs, learning that there are x USs per session, and so forth; (2) they permit the manipulation of factors such as CS duration or CS-US interval without confounding with trial spacing effects (Kaplan, 1984;Stein, Sidman, & Brady, 1958;Yeo, 201 Copyright 1987 Psychonomic Society, Inc.…”

Concurrent observations of barpress suppression and freezing: Effects of CS modality and on-line vs. off-line training upon posttrial behavior

“…44 that closely follow a shock presentation are explicitly unpaired with the following shock, and therefore gradually acquire the ability to inhibit fear conditioned to contextual cues or fear possibly initiated by the CS and persisting beyond it (Ayres, Mahoney, Proulx, & Benedict, 1976;Davis, 1970;Davis & McIntire, 1969;Davis, Memmott, & Hurwitz, 1975;Reberg & Memmott, 1979). This conditioned inhibition factor could account for the gradual loss of posttrial suppression seen with training.…”

One-trial backward fear conditioning in rats as a function of US intensity

“…The one-trial backward conditioning procedure is particularly interesting because it eliminates the possibility that any excitatory effects observed could be due to remote forward associations. It also would appear to minimize the possibility that any obtained results might be complicated by the learning of "autocontingencies" (Davis, Memmott, & Hurwitz , 1975) .…”