COMPOUNDING DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI CONTROLLING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE<sup>1</sup>

Emurian, Henry H.; Weiss, Stanley J.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1972.17-249

Cited by 41 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was the case whether responding in tone and in light was maintained by food or by shock avoidance. This replicates many previous findings of single-incentive stimuluscompounding studies (Emurian & Weiss, 1972;Meltzer & Masaki, 1972;Miller & Ackley, 1970;Weiss, 1964Weiss, , 1971Weiss, , 1976 while showing that the stimulus control established to create the appetitive-aversive interaction in Phases 1 and 3 was reversible. It is likely, however, that the contingency reversals over phases could have reduced the magnitude of the additive effect from what it would have been if the subjects had been trained on only the Phase 2 similar-incentive baseline, as they were for the studies represented by Point A,B in Figure 1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Weiss

Schindler²

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interaction of opposing motivational states was measured within a design in which rats barpressed for food in one stimulus and to avoid shock in another. Tone and light discriminative stimuli (Sds) were counterbalanced over incentive conditions. Extinction eliminated responding when neither Sd was present. To minimize the influence of competing peripheral operants or reinforcer-elicited behaviors during appetitive-aversive interactions, contingency parameters were manipulated to generate similar rates and patterns of barpressing in both Sds and stimuluscompounding tests were administered in extinction. On these tests, rates in tone, light, and tone plus light (T+L) were equivalent. In contrast, when the same reinforcer (i.e., food or shock avoidance) maintained comparable training rates in tone and in light, in testing, T+ L controlled double the rates of the single stimuli-strong additive summation. These results were strikingly similar to those of single-incentive experiments concerned with the contribution of excitatory and inhibitory incentive states to the results of stimulus compounding. Simultaneously presenting two Sds whose implicit stimulus-reinforcer (S-S1) contingencies were arranged to make them, respectively, conditioned appetitive and aversive excitors (present experiment) produced test results comparable to those of two Sds whose implicit s-sr contingencies were arranged to make them both conditioned inhibitors. Reciprocal antagonism between these two motive states more than neutralizes them. It appears to produce a negative (i.e., an inhibitory) motive state. 433One of the important objectives of psychology is to understand, that is, to be able to predict and control, behavior. Unfortunately, the ability to predict when a particular operant will be emitted, and when it will not, does not necessarily reflect an appreciation of the multiple factors that could be contributing to the stimulus control generated in any particular situation. This was clearly revealed in a series of experiments in which a comparison of baseline rates to each of two discriminative stimuli (Sds) as a measure of stimulus control was supplemented by stimulus-eompounding assays in which the single Sds were presented simultaneously for the first time (Weiss, 1969, 1971Weiss & Van Ost, 1974).In those experiments, the baseline rates of three groups of rats were indistinguishable from each other in spite of the fact that each group was trained on a different threecomponent schedule. In all three groups, rats barpressed

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Weiss

Schindler²

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Phase I results are, of course, those of the control group in Experiment 1.) A treatments X subjects ANOVA of Phase 1 yielded an F(2, 10) = 18.63, p < .001 (Lindquist, 1953 (Weiss, 1972(Weiss, , 1978 was exhibited here, with the magnitude of the effect no smaller than that reported when S2 had had no previous inhibitory training (Emurian & Weiss, 1972). 52 clearly acted in an excitatory capacity, with T + L controlling approximately 2.5 times the rate to S, or S2'…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 59%

Conditioning history and inhibitory instrumental stimulus control: Independent-groups and within-subjects measures

Weiss

Schindler

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of excitatory conditioning history on establishing inhibitory stimulus control have been investigated in classical conditioning, but not in the free-operant paradigm. The present experiments address this question within the context of discriminated free-operant avoidance in which rats' barpressing postponed shock. When a stimulus with only a history of signaling safety was combined, on a summation test, with a stimulus that maintained avoidance, avoidance rate was reduced, on average, by 60%. In comparison, after a stimulus acquired an excitatory free-operant avoidance history, nonreinforcement alone was not adequate to make it a predictable and effective inhibitor of avoidance on a summation test. These results, consistent with the classical conditioning literature, were produced by both between-group (Experiment 1)and withinsubject (Experiment 2) comparisons. These findings are discussed in terms of(l) Konorski's distinction between "primary" and "secondary" inhibitory stimuli, (2)the Rescorla-Wagner model, (3)the potential contribution of the "reinstatement of fear" to the outcome of summation tests, and (4)their implications for assaying the effectiveness of behavior-modification treatments of phobias.Conditioned excitation is the productof a positive contingency between a stimulus (S+) and a reinforcer (S~, and conditioned inhibition can resultfrom a negative contingency between theseevents. Although conditioned excitation is readily revealed when the organism is presented with S+, conditioned inhibition must be measured indirectly, because, on a simple behavioral level, the conditioned tendency not to makea response cannotbe distinguished from the absence of excitation. Pavlov (1927) often used the degree of response reduction to S+ on a summation testto measure theinhibitory strength ofa nonreinforced stimulus. More recently, Szwejkowska and Konorski (1959) and Reberg and Black (1969) reported response averaging when a reinforced (S+) and a nonreinforced (S-) stimulus were presented simultaneously. Thatis, S+ andS-together elicited fewerresponses than S+ but more responses than S-. Rescorla (1969) and Hearst, Beasley, and Farthing (1970) cited the summation (combined cues) test as well as the retardation of acquisition (resistance to reinforcement) assayas relatively straightforward measures that a stimulus controls a tendency opposite to excitation. In the retardation of acquisitionprocedure, it is assumed that excitatory conditioning to a stimulus with inhibitory properties will have to

show abstract

“…A variable-interval schedule was used in order to produce rates of avoidance in the presence of the elements that are comparable to the rates obtained in the appetitive studies cited above. Ot her studies of summation of avoidance have either used a latency measure (Miller, 1969) or have obtained lower response rates in the presence of the elements than were obtained in the appetitive studies (Emurian & Weiss, 1972). Thus, given the possibility that the summation of avoidance might be a rate-dependent phenomenon, less likely to occur with high than with low rates in the elements, the present experiment permits direct comparison of response summation in appetitive and avoidance procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

“…These group data accurately reflect the behavior of individual dogs, e.g., the mean r e sponse rate during the compound SD was higher than the had avoided on only 25%-35 % of the training trials, avoided equally rapidly in the presence of the compound and elements. Emurian & Weiss (1972) exposed three rats to a three-component multiple schedule in which an unsignaled avoidance procedure (Sidman, 1953) was in effect during either a light or a tone, but not in their absence . In a subsequent extinction test, response rates in the presence of the elements ranged from 1/min to 12/min for individual rats.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of compounding discriminative stimuli that control variable-interval limited-hold avoidance

LoLordo¹,

Hartf²

1972

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the presence of either a visual or an auditory discriminative stimulus, but not in their absence, dogs were required to depress a panel to avoid electric shock on a variable-interval limited hold schedule. Once avoidance responding had stabilized, the dogs received presentations of the auditory-visual compound aswell as the elements in a test session. All dogs responded at a higher rate in the presence of the compound stimulus than in the presence of either element.

show abstract

COMPOUNDING DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI CONTROLLING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE¹

Cited by 41 publications

References 15 publications

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Conditioning history and inhibitory instrumental stimulus control: Independent-groups and within-subjects measures

The effects of compounding discriminative stimuli that control variable-interval limited-hold avoidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

COMPOUNDING DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI CONTROLLING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE1

Cited by 41 publications

References 15 publications

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Integrating control generated by positive and negative reinforcement on an operant baseline: Appetitive-aversive interactions

Conditioning history and inhibitory instrumental stimulus control: Independent-groups and within-subjects measures

The effects of compounding discriminative stimuli that control variable-interval limited-hold avoidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

COMPOUNDING DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI CONTROLLING FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE¹