Behavioral Contrast: Pavlovian Effects and Anticipatory Contrast

Hassin-Herman, Alison D.; Hemmes, Nancy S.; Brown, Bruce L.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.57-159

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present results are similar to those reported recently by Hassin-Herman, Hemmes, and Brown (1992). In a four-component multiple schedule like that used here, they also varied the presence or absence of reinforcement 292 0 y , in the target components and whether the different following schedules were signaled by the same or different stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Competition Between Stimulus‐reinforcer Contingencies and Anticipatory Contrast

Williams

1992

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Procedures used to study anticipatory contrast are conceptually similar to those used to study autoshaping, in that two target stimuli signal either higher or lower rates of reinforcement in the following components of the schedule. Despite this signal contingency, anticipatory contrast entails response rates that are higher to the target stimulus followed by the lower rate of reinforcement. To determine the relation between such effects and autoshaping, different variations of the procedure were used in which the signal contingency was presented in the absence of reinforcement in the target components themselves and in which the reinforcement schedules in the different following components were signaled by the same stimulus. Autoshaping effects of this signal contingency were demonstrated when no reinforcement was available during the target-component signals themselves. Intermediate patterns of behavior occurred when reinforcement was available during the target-component signals and when their different following schedules were correlated with the same stimulus. Attempts to isolate these signal and contrast effects functionally by using the signal-key procedure were unsuccessful. The results demonstrate that Pavlovian stimulus contingencies are in competition with the dynamics of anticipatory contrast, thus reducing its occurrence under some circumstances.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Competition Between Stimulus‐reinforcer Contingencies and Anticipatory Contrast

Williams

1992

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, it is incomplete because it cannot account for all observations of contrast. However, there is broad agreement that contrast is multiply determined (e.g., de Rose, 1986;Dougan, Farmer-Dougan, & McSweeney, 1989;Dougan et al, 1985Dougan et al, , 1986Hassin-Herman, Hemmes, & Brown, 1992;Williams, 1983), a view that is supported by explicit evidence. As we have argued, some evidence shows that contrast occurs in the absence of differential habituation when the conditions of reinforcement in the following component are changed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habituation to the Reinforcer May Contribute to Multiple‐schedule Behavioral Contrast

McSweeney

Weatherly

1998

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habituation to the reinforcer may contribute to multiple-schedule behavioral contrast. According to this argument, reducing reinforcers in one component of a multiple schedule reduces habituation to the reinforcer. Reducing habituation enhances the value, or effectiveness, of the remaining reinforcers, producing positive contrast. Enriching the reinforcers in one component increases habituation to that reinforcer. Increasing habituation decreases the effectiveness of the reinforcer, producing negative contrast. Such an idea is simple and parsimonious. It is not contradicted by any well-established finding in the contrast literature. It makes several tested and untested predictions that are unusual. However, habituation cannot explain all contrast. A complete explanation requires postulating that at least one additional mechanism, controlled by the conditions of reinforcement in the following component, also contributes to contrast.

show abstract

“…Future research will need to pursue this explanation. Fortunately, several procedures exist to assess the effects of Pavlovian conditioning on instrumental responding (e.g., Hassin-Herman, Hemmes, & Brown, 1992;Williams, 199,1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delivering Different Reinforcers in Each Half of the Session: Effect of Reinforcement Rate

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research (Weatherly, Stout, Rue, & Melville, 2000) has shown that rats' rates of lever pressing for low-concentration liquid-sucrose reinforcement in the first half of an experimental session are higher when food pellets, rather than the same sucrose reinforcers, are delivered in the second half of the session (Le., induction). The present study investigated whether this effect was sensitive to changes in the rate of reinforcement in the first or second half of the session. Rats responded in 50-min sessions, with 1 % (Experiment 1) or 5% (Experiment 2) liquid-sucrose reinforcers delivered during the first half of the session. In different conditions, food pellets or the same sucrose served as the reinforcer in the second half of the session. Rate of reinforcement in either the first or second half of the session was varied across conditions. Results showed that induction was present in both experiments, although it was most reliable when subjects responded for 1 % sucrose. They also suggest that rate of sucrose reinforcement is not a determining factor of when induction will be observed. By doing so, the present results increase the generality of the present induction effect.Behavioral contrast (Reynolds, 1961) refers to an inverse relati.onship between the rate of operant responding in one component of a multiple schedule and the conditions of reinforcement that exist in another component of that schedule (McSweeney & Norman, 1979). Contrast effects are typically studied using pigeons that respond on multiple schedules with highly discriminable components that are short in length, alternate successively many times during a single session, and deliver the same reinforcer in both components

show abstract

Behavioral Contrast: Pavlovian Effects and Anticipatory Contrast

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

Competition Between Stimulus‐reinforcer Contingencies and Anticipatory Contrast

Competition Between Stimulus‐reinforcer Contingencies and Anticipatory Contrast

Habituation to the Reinforcer May Contribute to Multiple‐schedule Behavioral Contrast

Delivering Different Reinforcers in Each Half of the Session: Effect of Reinforcement Rate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About