The Molarity of Molecular Theory and the Molecularity of Molar Theory

Abstract

Dinsmoor (2001) rejects shock-frequency reduction as a reinforcer for avoidance behavior, and considers this to be an invalidation of so-called molar avoidance theory. This is a narrow view of operant avoidance theory, for which shock-frequency reduction is by no means the only reinforcer.

Still No Evidence for Temporally Extended Shock‐frequency Reduction as a Reinforcer

“…After that, no more shocks were delivered during the remainder of a 2-min period of alternative stimulation. Bersh's (2001) conclusion is in agreement with those reached by the original authors. However, the experiment itself was flawed.…”

“…As yet, we have little trustworthy knowledge of how these anecdotal relations arise. Bersh (2001) agrees with Hineline that molar theorists are inclusive, incorporating the two-factor theory of avoidance conditioning rather than proposing that long-term shockfrequency reduction is a substitute or replacement for that analysis. ''Although a conditioned aversive stimulus acquires its aversive properties through respondent conditioning, and its termination functions as negative reinforcement,'' he goes on to say, ''this by no means rules out the consideration of a warning signal as a discriminative stimulus'' (p. 348).…”

“…According to Bersh's (2001) commentary, averaging the delays to reinforcement following the effective response and comparing them to the delays following other responses ''is hardly . .…”

Porque a análise de Baum (2012): “Rethinking reinforcement: allocation, induction and contingency” é importante.

“…A decisão a respeito do paradigma adotado para a devida análise de dados não se configura numa dicotomia "molar ou molecular" (Bersh, 2001). Em acordo, conforme já mencionado, Shimp (2013) propõe uma terceira categoria de análise denominada de unificada.…”

Acquisition of Active Avoidance Behavior as a Precursor to Changes in General Arousal in an Animal Model of PTSD

“…In this approach, the animal learns to exhibit the behavior because it leads to the attainment of perceived safety, which could be in the form of an explicit stimulus only present during periods of non-threat or simply as the absence of the warning signal. At the foundation of this theoretical discussion is a fundamental difference in the view of how animals perceive learning: a molecular (trial by trial, stimulus by stimulus) or molar (general state) analysis (Hineline, 2001;Bersh, 2001). One could argue that lingering changes in general arousal outside of the avoidance learning context may reflect overall changes in the animals that would be proposed by molar analysis theory.…”