“…Suboptimal choice as evidenced in the procedures summarized above provides a challenge for models of choice that minimize or eliminate the role of conditioned reinforcement (Davison & Baum, ; Shahan, , ; see Bell & McDevitt, ). Other lines of evidence make similar arguments for the concept of conditioned reinforcement as incorporated in the SiGN hypothesis (e.g., Bell & Williams, ; Williams, ).…”
Section: Implications and Future Directionsmentioning
Pigeons and other animals sometimes deviate from optimal choice behavior when given informative signals for delayed outcomes. For example, when pigeons are given a choice between an alternative that always leads to food after a delay and an alternative that leads to food only half of the time after a delay, preference changes dramatically depending on whether the stimuli during the delays are correlated with (signal) the outcomes or not. With signaled outcomes, pigeons show a much greater preference for the suboptimal alternative than with unsignaled outcomes. Key variables and research findings related to this phenomenon are reviewed, including the effects of durations of the choice and delay periods, probability of reinforcement, and gaps in the signal. We interpret the available evidence as reflecting a preference induced by signals for good news in a context of uncertainty. Other explanations are briefly summarized and compared.
“…Suboptimal choice as evidenced in the procedures summarized above provides a challenge for models of choice that minimize or eliminate the role of conditioned reinforcement (Davison & Baum, ; Shahan, , ; see Bell & McDevitt, ). Other lines of evidence make similar arguments for the concept of conditioned reinforcement as incorporated in the SiGN hypothesis (e.g., Bell & Williams, ; Williams, ).…”
Section: Implications and Future Directionsmentioning
Pigeons and other animals sometimes deviate from optimal choice behavior when given informative signals for delayed outcomes. For example, when pigeons are given a choice between an alternative that always leads to food after a delay and an alternative that leads to food only half of the time after a delay, preference changes dramatically depending on whether the stimuli during the delays are correlated with (signal) the outcomes or not. With signaled outcomes, pigeons show a much greater preference for the suboptimal alternative than with unsignaled outcomes. Key variables and research findings related to this phenomenon are reviewed, including the effects of durations of the choice and delay periods, probability of reinforcement, and gaps in the signal. We interpret the available evidence as reflecting a preference induced by signals for good news in a context of uncertainty. Other explanations are briefly summarized and compared.
“…It first should be noted that the terms marking and bridging as used in AAB differ from their technical definitions in the psychology of learning literature. Bell and McDevitt (2014, p. 235; see also Dorey & Cox, 2018; Feng et al, 2016), for example, observed that[s]uperficially, conditioned reinforcement, marking, and bridging procedures are quite similar: they all allow a connection between an event (stimulus or behavior) and its temporally distant consequence … in conditioned reinforcement procedures the stimulus occurs only after a correct response (i.e., a response leading to primary reinforcement) has been made, whereas with marking and bridging the stimulus occurs regardless of the choice response” (p. 235).…”
Section: Response Establishment and Maintenancementioning
Some of the earliest applications outside the laboratory of principles derived from the experimental analysis of behavior (EAB), such as the pioneering work of Keller and Marian Breland, involved animals. This translational tradition continues to the present as EAB-related behavior principles are applied with increasing frequency to behavior management and training practices with animals in nonlaboratory settings. Such translations, and those populations to which they are applied, benefit from a rigorous experimental analysis of practices that are promulgated in popular outlets. These translations both affirm the generality of those principles and serve as goads for laboratory and field research that can further articulate extant principles, develop new ones, and refine methods of application and assessment. This review considered several areas of basic EAB research and contemporary applied animal behavior (AAB) practices in relation to one another: (1) response establishment and maintenance, (2) response reduction and elimination, (3) chaining and conditioned reinforcement, and (4) discriminative stimulus control. Within each topic, a selection of processes and procedures in both EAB and AAB work were reviewed in relation to one another.
“…The second level of the hierarchy describes what we refer to as contextual values , representing stimuli or actions that initially do not have any inherent value, but that acquire it in virtue of their ability to predict basic values in certain contexts. Again, this is inspired by associative learning literature, and precisely by the concept of conditioned (or secondary) reinforcer (Bell & McDevitt, 2014; Rescorla, 1980; Skinner, 1953). Empirical evidence indicates that, if an initially neutral stimulus such as a token is associated with an unconditioned reinforcer such as food, then animals’ actions resulting in the token will be reinforced, even if these actions never lead to food (Bell & McDevitt, 2014).…”
Section: Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Again, this is inspired by associative learning literature, and precisely by the concept of conditioned (or secondary) reinforcer (Bell & McDevitt, 2014; Rescorla, 1980; Skinner, 1953). Empirical evidence indicates that, if an initially neutral stimulus such as a token is associated with an unconditioned reinforcer such as food, then animals’ actions resulting in the token will be reinforced, even if these actions never lead to food (Bell & McDevitt, 2014). This indicates that the token has become a conditioned reinforcer and has acquired motivational value in it of itself (Rescorla, 1980).…”
Ultimate values can be defined as abstract rules or goals transcending specific contexts and defining the utmost purposes of existence. Although the literature about human values is vast, several fundamental questions about ultimate values remain open. What are the processes responsible for the formation of ultimate values? What is the impact of inbuilt affective processes and of learning, respectively? Regarding learning, what is the role of society? Empirical evidence shows dramatic variability in ultimate values pursued by different people. Why? These open questions suggest that a precise picture of ultimate values is lacking. This paper offers a computational theory of ultimate values. The key idea is that our brain represents values along a hierarchy where ultimate values are built upon experiences with inherent affective nature (basic values). Based on these representations, the proposal is that the brain infers the rules that foster basic values in a variety of contexts. These would become ultimate values and drive human behaviour independent of the ongoing context. We discuss how the theory can contribute to understanding a variety of aspects of human values, including morality, to what degree values are innate or culturally determined, and how values shape and are shaped by society.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
