Download p.218-220 - Amazon Web Services

218
Chapter 7 · Operant–Respondent Interrelationships
study. An indication of the way operant factors can modulate the performance of automaintained behavior has been given. . . . The analysis suggests that while automaintained
behavior departs in important ways from the familiar patterns seen with arbitrary responses,
the concepts and procedures developed from the operant framework are, nevertheless,
influential in the automaintenance situation.
(Schwartz & Williams, 1972a, p. 356)
Schwartz and Williams (1972b) went on to investigate the nature of key pecking
by pigeons in several other experiments. The researchers precisely measured the
contact duration of each peck that birds made to a response key. When the omission
procedure was in effect, pigeons produced short-duration pecks. If the birds were
autoshaped, but key pecks did not prevent the delivery of grain, the duration of the
pecks was long. These same long-duration pecks occurred when the pigeons responded
for food on a schedule of reinforcement. Generally, it appears that there are two types of
key pecks: short-duration pecks evoked (or perhaps elicited) by the presentation of grain,
and long-duration pecks that occur when the bird’s behavior is brought under operant
control.
Other evidence also suggests that both operant and respondent conditioning is
involved in autoshaping. For example, Bullock and Myers (2009) recently showed that
autoshaped responding of the cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis) is sensitive
to both negative (omission) and positive (response-dependent) contingencies, using
banana pellets and stimulus-directed, touch-screen responses. It is likely, therefore,
that autoshaped pecking by birds is initially respondent behavior elicited by light–food
pairings. Once pecking produces food, however, it comes under operant control.
Even when an omission procedure is in effect both operant and respondent, behavior
is conditioned, suggesting that there is no uniform learning process underlying
autoshaping (Papachristos & Gallistel, 2006). During omission training, a response to
the key turns off the key light and food is not delivered. If the bird does not peck the key,
the light is eventually turned off and food is presented. Notice that light offset (dark key)
is always predictive of reinforcement and becomes a conditioned reinforcer in the omission procedure. In this analysis, pecking the key is maintained by immediate reinforcement
from light offset. Hursh, Navarick, and Fantino (1974) provided evidence for this conditioned reinforcement view of negative automaintenance. They showed that birds quit
responding during omission training if the key light did not immediately go out when a
response was made.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter has considered several areas of research on respondent–operant interactions.
Autoshaping showed that an operant response (key pecking for food) could actually be elicited by
respondent procedures. Before this research, operants and respondents had been treated as separate
systems subject to independent controlling procedures. The Brelands’ animal training demonstrations provided a hint that the two systems were not distinct—with species-specific behavior being
elicited by operant contingencies. Their work revealed the biological foundations of conditioning
as well as the contributions made by biologically relevant factors. Animals are prepared by evolution to be responsive to specific events and differentially sensitive to various aspects of the
environment.
Chapter Summary
219
Other experiments indicated that respondent behavior could be controlled by operant contingencies. The Miller studies used curare to immobilize rats, showing that heart rate—an autonomic
response—could be reinforced by electrical stimulation of the brain. The implication again is that
the neural systems regulating respondent and operant behavior are interrelated, allowing for operant
conditioning of behavior (heart rate) that is often considered to be hard-wired.
Taste aversion is another example of biological factors underlying conditioning procedures.
The findings of Garcia and Koelling indicate that interoceptive stimuli are paired with each other
(flavor–sickness) better than crossing systems stimuli (flavor–shock), illustrating how organisms are
prepared for conditioning based on evolution and natural selection. Work in this area contributes to
the management of toxic plant ingestion by livestock, and to the prediction and control of diet
selection. Finally, we discussed activity anorexia both as a real-world human problem and as an
interesting research question. What neurophysiological–behavioral mechanisms could possibly
interact to drive an organism to self-starvation? It turns out that a combination of restricted access
to food and the opportunity to exercise are the conditions that lead to this deadly spiral.
KEY WORDS
Activity anorexia
Interim behavior
Adjunctive behavior
Negative automaintenance
Autoshaping
Omission procedure (training)
Behavior system
Polydipsia
Biological context
Preparedness
Conditioned taste preference
Schedule-induced behavior
Context for conditioning
Sign tracking
Displacement behavior
Stimulus substitution
Facultative behavior
Taste aversion learning
Instinctive drift
Terminal behavior
ON THE WEB
http://psych.rutgers.edu/program_areas/bbn/bbn_00.html Students who are interested in
schedule-induced behavior or foraging models of behavior may be interested in this website for
Biopsychology and Behavioral Neuroscience at Rutgers University. Click on the Faculty home
pages for George Collier and John Falk.
www.jsu.edu/depart/psychology/sebac/fac-sch/spot-peck/spot-peck.html Go to this website to
read an actual scientific article on “Stereotyped adjunctive pecking by caged pigeons”, by Palya
and Zacny (1980), from Animal Learning and Behavior, 8, 293–303.
www.ctalearning.com This website provides an annotated bibliography and overview of conditioned taste aversion by Anthony Riley of the Department of Psychology, Psychopharmacology
Laboratory, American University, Washington, DC.
220
Chapter 7 · Operant–Respondent Interrelationships
BRIEF QUIZ
1.
In terms of operant contingencies and the intrusion of reflexive behavior:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
2.
operant procedures elicit reflexive behavior directly by the contingencies of reinforcement
reflexive behavior is elicited by respondent procedures embedded in operant contingencies
respondent procedures cause species-characteristic responses
both (b) and (c) are true
What did Brown and Jenkins (1968) conclude about autoshaping in their pigeons?
(a) the look–peck coupling is species-specific and results in pecks to the illuminated key
(b) following illumination of the key with grain eventually caused the lighted key to elicit
pecking
(c) eventually an operant chain develops, culminating in pecking
(d) all of the above
3.
Phenomena such as instinctive drift, sign tracking, and autoshaping have been analyzed as:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
4.
stimulus substitution, where the CS substitutes for the US
behavior systems activated by the US and the physical properties of the CS
both (a) and (b)
none of the above
In terms of operant conditioning of reflexive behavior, the experiment by Miller and Carmona
(1967):
(a) showed conclusive results for operant conditioning of salivation
(b) showed that salivation and heart rate were both susceptible to operant conditioning
(c) showed that the increased flow of saliva was accompanied by the dogs being more
alert
(d) showed all of the above
5.
What does the evidence suggest about the operant conditioning of reflexive behavior?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
6.
When a CS compound (color and taste) is associated with illness, different species show avoidance to the two parts of the compound. This phenomenon is called:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
7.
reflexes can be conditioned by operant procedures in some circumstances
reflexive behavior is hardly ever controlled by respondent procedures
reflexive behavior is generally controlled by operant procedures
only (b) and (c) are true
species readiness
species set
species preparedness
species activation
What did Lett and Grant (1996) suggest with regard to activity anorexia?
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
it could involve taste aversion induced by physical activity
it probably explains taste-aversion conditioning
it is the first stage in taste-aversion conditioning
both (b) and (c)