Selective Associations Produced Solely With Appetitive Contingencies: The Stimulus‐reinforcer Interaction Revisited

Abstract

In studies reporting stimulus-reinforcer interactions in traditional conditioning paradigms, when a tone-light compound was associated with food the light gained stimulus control, but when the compound was paired with shock avoidance the tone gained control. However, the physical nature of the reinforcer-related events (food vs. shock) presented in the presence of the tone-light compound was always confounded with the conditioned hedonic value of the compound's presence relative to its absence. When the compound was paired with shock, its presence was negative relative to its absence (which was shock-free). In contrast, when the compound was paired with food, its presence was positive relative to its absence (which was food-free). The present experiment dealt with this confounding effect by conditioning a tone-light compound to be positive or negative, relative to its absence, solely with food reinforcement. One group of rats received food for responding in the presence of the tone-light compound and no food in its absence. The other group also responded in the presence of the compound, but received food only in its absence. These rats were trained on a chained schedule in which responding in the presence of the tone-light compound produced a terminal link signaled by the absence of the compound; responding ceased in the terminal link because it delayed food delivery. In a test session to assess stimulus control by the elements of the compound, tone and light were presented separately under extinction conditions. Rats that had been exposed to a positive correlation between food and the compound emitted almost double the responses in the presence of the light as in the presence of the tone. In comparison, rats that had been exposed to a negative correlation emitted only two thirds as many responses in the presence of the light as in the presence of the tone. Because this selective association was produced using only food, it appears that the contingencies under which a reinforcer is presented, rather than (or as well as) its physical properties, can generate the selective associations previously attributed to "stimulus-reinforcer interactions." This could mean that regardless of the class of reinforcer that ultimately maintains responding (appetitive or aversive), the contingency-generated hedonic value of the compound stimulus may influence the dominant modality of stimulus control.

Applied Implications of Theory and Research on the Nature of Reinforcement

“…It may also be relevant that the biological-constraint literature has often been presented (but not correctly) as in some way incompatible with the general approach underlying applied behavior analysis. However, the recent work of Panlilio and Weiss (1993) and Weiss, Panlilio, and Schindler (1993aSchindler ( , 1993b should 'The language of associations is usually cognitive, and the usage here should not be taken as an endorsement of this verbal practice. The term is not an unreasonable label for a particular environmental history ("the light was associated with food reinforcement," meaning that for the relevant organism, food was available when the light was on and not when it was off); but when the environmental history is said to result in an association between light and food in or for the organism, an internal cognitive construct is being identified that can readily become an explanatory fiction.…”

“…More recently, Weiss et al (1993a) identified a confounding effect in the previous research between the type of reinforcement (food or shock avoidance2) and what they referred to as the conditioned hedonic value (p. 31 1) of the stimulus compound; that is, the extent to which the TL compound (tone and light on) would be expected to function as a conditioned reinforcer or a conditioned punisher with respect to the TL condition (tone and light off). In the previous research, TL was the condition in which responding produced food, and TL was the extinction condition.…”

“…Weiss et al (1993a) wanted to see if differential control by the visual and auditory components of a compound stimulus would be seen using only food reinforcement but with TL having differential hedonic value. They trained one group of rats with the TL compound as a condition during which lever pressing on a variable-interval (VI) schedule produced food, contrasted with TL as an extinction condition.…”

Instrumental and Classical Conditioning

“…Weiss, Panlilio, and Schindler (1993) produced T+L conditions of positive or negative hedonic value with appetitive contingencies. Weiss, Panlilio, and Schindler (1993) produced T+L conditions of positive or negative hedonic value with appetitive contingencies.…”

The Contribution of Postingestive Associations to Alcohol Self-Administration

“…Broadly defined, a conditioned reinforcer is a once-neutral stimulus that acquires reinforcing function (Hendry, 1969;Hull, 1943;Kelleher & Gollub, 1962;Keller & Schoenfeld, 1950;Williams, 1994). Although the precise mechanism(s) in which a conditioned reinforcer acquires its reinforcing efficacy is not universally agreed upon Williams, 1994), it is apparent that stimuli associated with other reinforcers acquire reinforcing properties and become conditioned reinforcers (Fantino, 1977;Fantino, Preston, & Dunn, 1993;Kelleher, 1961Kelleher, , 1966Mazur, 1991Mazur, , 1995Mazur & Romano, 1992;Nevin, 1969;Pliskoff & Tolliver, 1960;Weiss, Panlilio, & Schindler, 1993). This effect has been described for a variety of reinforcers, species, and settings (Bersh & Lambert, 1975;Brun, 1970;Salzinger, Freimark, Fairhurst, & Wolkoff, 1968).…”