The Significance of Behavior Accompanying Conditioned Salivary Secretion for Theories of the Conditioned Response

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to a reward-related cue: Influence on cocaine sensitization

“…Even after 5 days of training they approached the lever on some trials and the food receptacle on others, and on 50% of trials they vacillated between the cue and the food receptacle, approaching both during the same CS period. This behavior is very similar to that originally described by Zener [56], who reported that after pairing a bell with food delivery many dogs repeatedly exhibited successive glances from the bell to the food-pan and back during a single trial. Although this intermediate group is interesting in its own right, we chose to focus on the extremes of the population for the purpose of the cocaine study because we were interested in comparing animals that expressed either the sign-tracking or goal-tracking phenotype, and the IG did neither reliably.…”

“…This form of behavior (i.e., goal-tracking) was originally described by Zener [56] in dogs, and later by Boakes [5] in rats, but we are not aware of any reports since that directly compare (under the same experimental conditions) animals that sign-track to those that goal-track. It is important to emphasize that like sign-tracking, goal-tracking is a learned (conditioned) response.…”

“…Zener (1937) first described individual differences in complex skeletal CRs in dogs trained using a classic Pavlovian conditioning procedure (i.e., a bell paired with food reward). He reported that some dogs responded to the CS with "an initial glance at the bell" followed by "a constant fixation…to the food-pan …", whereas a few dogs exhibited a "small but definite movement of approach toward the conditioned stimulus … followed by a backing up later to a position to eat", a sequence described by Zener as a "striking phenomenon" [56, pg.…”

Adaptive Behavior and Learning

“…Recent experiments using the Estes-Skinner procedure tend to look just at the suppression measure. Other recent work has emphasized the earlier conclusion of Zener (1937) that these simple changes are perhaps the least important of the many effects of classical-conditioning procedures, however. I return to a discussion of these other effects in Chapter 13 in connection with the acquisition of behavior.…”

Observation of the behavior of rats running to reward and nonreward in an alleyway ...

“…Yet, it is also quite clear that learning 8 theorists intend their statements to apply to the behavior of single subjects (Estes, 1956;Hayes, 1953, p« 269 ;Skinner, 1961;Spence, 1956, pp. 60-61 A second problem is the lack of direct obser-vational study of the whole range of behavior in the alleyway, and in other learning situations (Bindra, 1961;Guthrie, 1959;Mackintosh, 1955;Staddon & Simmelhag, 1971; but see Zener, 1937 what competing behavior is, and how orderly it is, common assumptions being that it is simply "random" or "spontaneous" activity (see Bindra, 1961;Hicks, 1911;Spence, 1956), or behavior directly elicited by novel stimuli (Bindra, 1961;Hinde, 1970;Mackintosh, 1955;Pereboom, 1957;Spence, 1956 (Crespi, 1942;Zeaman, 1949).…”