Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning

Abstract

Associative and behavior systems accounts of Pavlovian conditioning have different emphases. The traditional associative account has focused on the role of the unconditional stimulus (US) in strengthening stimulus associations according to a set of general laws. The behavior systems account has focused on the relation of conditional responding to the preorganized perceptual, motor, and motivational organization engaged by the US. Knowledge of a behavior system enables successful prediction of the form and ease of conditioning as a function of the type of conditional stimulus (CS), US, and the CS-US relation. At the same time, Pavlovian manipulations act as a window on how a behavior system works. Both associative and behavior systems accounts can be criticized as incomplete and idiosyncratic. A comprehensive account of Pavlovian conditioning could profit from their integration. 405Laboratory-associationist and adaptive-evolutionary accounts of Pavlovian conditioning differ markedly in their focus. The former has emphasized the association between the conditional stimulus (CS) and the unconditional stimulus (US), and the role of the US in strengthening it (e.g., Hearst, 1988;Kimble, 1961;Mackintosh, 1974;Pavlov, 1927). Conditioning procedures have been refined and standardized to isolate the study of associations from the influence of instincts, nonassociative changes, and response-contingent reward (Hilgard & Marquis, 1940;Kimble, 1961). More recent models have expanded the types ofassociation and the role ofcontext, multiple CSs, the CS-US contingency, and stimulus representations in determining behavior (e.g., Miller & Matzel, 1988;Rescorla & Holland, 1982). However, the focus has remained on associations among stimuli and the simple causal role of the US. Within this approach, behavior has been treated primarily as an index of the strength of associations.In contrast, adaptive-evolutionary accounts of Pavlovian conditioning have emphasized behavior, especially the relation of the conditional response to the form and orientation of naturally occurring functional behavior and relevant underlying structure and processes (e.g., Davey, 1989;Fanselow & Lester, 1988;Gardner & Gardner, 1988;Holland, 1984;Hollis, 1982Hollis, , 1990Konorski, 1967;Rozin & Schull, 1988;Timberlake, 1983b;Timberlake & Lucas, 1989; Timberlake & Silva, in press). In this approach, establishing the perceptual-motor organiCompletion of this manuscript was facilitated by NIMH Grant 37892 and NSF Grant IBN 91 21647. The manuscript is based on a symposium presentation at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, 1993. I am indebted to Cynthia Langley, Fran Silva, and Kathleen Silva for their comments. Please address correspondence to W. Timberlake, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, zation and motivational processes underlying behavior is a critical step in understanding conditioning. Presentation of the US is viewed as engaging and constraining preorganized mechanisms underlying behavior, rather tha...

Amygdala Central Nucleus Function Is Necessary for Learning, but Not Expression, of Conditioned Auditory Orienting.

“…We prefer such an account for our data for several reasons. First, previous studies in rats and pigeons have noted that autoshaped responses often comprise several components, distinguishable by their form, temporal sequence, and susceptibility to experimental manipulation (Holland, 1979(Holland, , 1980Timberlake, 1994;Wessels, 1974). Rearing occurs as the initial component of responding to a variety of visual CSs, but the approach and contact responses that characterize autoshaping emerge only to more limited sets of visual CSs (e.g.…”

Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning

“…The general process approach supplies tools to explore and analyze the flexibility of stimulus control, response form, and the contribution of environmental support (e.g. Timberlake, 1994). It also provides an abstract causal schemata that can be used to categorize problems and suggest applied possibilities in human and non-human animals.…”

“…In fact, given the appropriate kind and timing of supporting CSs, niche-related foraging behaviors that vary with the timing and nature of the CS and the type of supporting stimuli should emerge readily under simple Pavlovian 'autoshaping' contingencies. Hearst and Jenkins (1974) provided documentation of these effects focused on pigeon key-pecking, and see Timberlake (Timberlake, 1994(Timberlake, , 2001) for more complex predictions about how behavior should vary with the type of CS and US and the relation of the CS -US interval to underlying foraging search states.…”

“…My colleagues and I, based on our laboratory work, have proposed adding a sequence of motivational substates to each system in the form of repertoires of perceptual-motor modules. In the case of food, these substates include a general search mode related to finding food at a distance, a focal search mode related to finding proximal food, a handling/consuming mode related to ingestion, and a post-food focal search mode related to proximate area restricted search (please see Timberlake, 1983bTimberlake, , 1993Timberlake, , 1994Timberlake, , 1999Timberlake, , 2001Timberlake and Lucas, 1989;Timber-lake and Silva, 1995). A more complete specification of components would also include aspects of neurophysiology and regulation.…”

A social insect perspective on the evolution of social learning mechanisms

“…We now know that associative learning is a means to build a complex, representation-based picture of the world that is far from the simple stimulus-response/reinforcement paradigms through which it was originally characterized (19)(20)(21)(22). Correspondingly, it has been repeatedly argued that associative explanations are powerful enough to encompass many cognitive phenomena (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29), and social learning is no exception.…”