* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download p.218-220 - Amazon Web Services
Bullying and emotional intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Prosocial behavior wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Observational methods in psychology wikipedia , lookup
Insufficient justification wikipedia , lookup
Abnormal psychology wikipedia , lookup
Symbolic behavior wikipedia , lookup
Parent management training wikipedia , lookup
Behavioral modernity wikipedia , lookup
Organizational behavior wikipedia , lookup
Thin-slicing wikipedia , lookup
Neuroeconomics wikipedia , lookup
Transtheoretical model wikipedia , lookup
Classical conditioning wikipedia , lookup
Applied behavior analysis wikipedia , lookup
Adherence management coaching wikipedia , lookup
Attribution (psychology) wikipedia , lookup
Theory of planned behavior wikipedia , lookup
Verbal Behavior wikipedia , lookup
Theory of reasoned action wikipedia , lookup
Sociobiology wikipedia , lookup
Psychological behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Descriptive psychology wikipedia , lookup
Professional practice of behavior analysis wikipedia , lookup
Social cognitive theory wikipedia , lookup
Behavioral economics wikipedia , lookup
Behavior analysis of child development wikipedia , lookup
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)