Forms of inhibition in animal and human learning.

Abstract

Forms of inhibition were identified in human predictive learning that are qualitatively similar to those identified by P.C. Holland (1984) in rats. When P (positive) signaled the outcome and PN (N = negative) signaled the absence of the outcome, participants learned the discrimination, but the negative cue did not suppress responding to a transfer cue. Post-learning reversal training, in which N was followed by the outcome, did not abolish the original discrimination. These 2 results imply a configural form of inhibition. Negative transfer, which indicated a 2nd, elemental form of inhibition, was observed when neither PN nor N were reinforced during the discrimination stage. Under these conditions, negative transfer and the original discrimination were both abolished by individually pairing N with the outcome. Empirical parallels and differences with the animal conditioning literature are discussed.

Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change.

“…Whereas single presentations of the CS typically reduce conditioning effects in PC, such single presentations leave EC effects unaffected (e.g., Baeyens, Crombez, Van den Bergh, & Eelen, 1988). Taken together, these results suggest that, even though PC effects may be driven by higher order propositional processes (e.g., Holyoak et al, 1989;Lovibond, 2003;Williams, 1995), EC effects are better explained by a qualitatively different, associative mechanism (De Houwer et al, 2001).With regard to the role of propositional processes in human reasoning, we generally agree with the argument that many processes that have been described as associative may actually be propositional (e.g., Erb et al, 2003;Osman, 2004). In fact, we claim that any kind of reasoning process is inherently propositional, given that reasoning is concerned with validation and the assessment of truth values (Deutsch & Strack, in press).…”

“…With regard to the APE model, the three most critical arguments in this debate are as follows: (a) Effects of classical conditioning depend on higher order propositional rather than lower level associative processes (e.g., Holyoak, Koh, & Nisbett, 1989;Lovibond, 2003;Williams, 1995), (b) reasoning processes that have been described as associative are actually propositional (e.g., Erb et al, 2003;Osman, 2004), and (c) even associative processes follow rules, thus undermining the theoretical basis for a distinction between associative and rule-based processes (e.g., Gigerenzer & Regier, 1996; Kruglanski, Erb, Pierro, Mannetti, & Chun, in press). All of these arguments challenge the basic distinction between associative and propositional process, suggesting that a single process may be sufficient to account for the phenomena in question.…”

“…With regard to the role of propositional processes in classical conditioning (e.g., Holyoak et al, 1989;Lovibond, 2003;Williams, 1995), it is important to note that the APE model is primarily concerned with effects of EC rather than with signal learning effects resulting from Pavlovian conditioning (PC). Whereas the CS in a PC paradigm typically acquires a predictive value for the US, the CS in an EC paradigm merely attains the affective quality of the US.…”

Pavlovian backward conditioned inhibition in humans: Summation and retardation tests

“…Thus, in those studies the researchers introduced the rating scale and gave explicit instructions about both extremes of the rating scale, emphasizing that if a cue was negatively correlated with the outcome (preventative), then it should be assigned with a negative rating. Williams (1995;1996) has proposed that a better way to assess inhibitory contingency is to use a transfer test, analogous to the summation test widely used in the animal literature (Rescorla, 1969). In a transfer test participants rate the target cue in compound with a transfer excitor which has been trained independent of the putative inhibitory target cues, and inhibition is inferred if the target cue diminishes the ratings that would be attributed to the excitor alone or to the excitor presented in compound with a novel cue.…”

“…In a transfer test participants rate the target cue in compound with a transfer excitor which has been trained independent of the putative inhibitory target cues, and inhibition is inferred if the target cue diminishes the ratings that would be attributed to the excitor alone or to the excitor presented in compound with a novel cue. According to Williams (1995), this procedure avoids giving participants elaborate instructions that might compromise the neutrality of the task. For example, after providing instructions about the anchors of the scale and the information they represent, it is unclear the extent to which any observed inhibition is a result of the contingencies during training as opposed to the instructions concerning the scale.…”