The critical dimensions of the response-reinforcer contingency

Behavioural Processes

Volumn 54, Issue 1-3, 2001, Pages 111-126

  Williams, B A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingency; Delay of reinforcement; Reinforcement contingency

Indexed keywords

AROUSAL; ASSOCIATION; BEHAVIOR; BEHAVIORISM; COMPREHENSION; CONDITIONING; CONFERENCE PAPER; ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MEMORY; NONHUMAN; PROBABILITY; REINFORCEMENT; THEORY;

EID: 0035799622     PISSN: 03766357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0376-6357(01)00153-X     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (52)

1. Arbuckle J.L., Lattal K.A. Changes in the functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 49:1988;249-263.
2. Baum W.M. The correlation-based law of effect. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 20:1973;137-143.
3. Belke T.W. Stimulus preference and the transitivity of preference. Anim. Learn. Behav. 20:1992;401-406.
4. Catania A.C. Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 6:1963;299-300.
5. Colwill R., Rescorla R. Associative structures in instrumental learning. In: G.H. Bower (Editor). Psychol. Learn. Motivat. 20:1986;55-104.
6. Dickinson A., Charnock D.J. Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 37B:1985;397-416.
7. Dickinson A., Watt A., Griffiths W.J.H. Free-operant acquisition with delayed reinforcement. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 45B:1992;241-258.
8. Dickinson A., Watt A., Varga Z.I. Context conditioning and free-operant acquisition under delayed reinforcement. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 49B:1996;97-110.
9. Dragoi V., Staddon J.E.R. The dynamics of operant conditioning. Psychol. Rev. 106:1999;20-61.
10. Durlach P.J. The effect of signalling intertrial USs in autoshaping. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 9:1983;374-389.
11. Gallistel C.R., Gibbon J. Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychol. Rev. 107:2000;289-344.
12. Gibbon J. Dynamics of time matching: arousal makes better seem worse. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2:1995;208-215.
13. Grice R. The relation of secondary reinforcement to delayed reward in visual discrimination learning. J. Exp. Psychol. 38:1948;1-16.
14. Herrnstein R.J. On the law of effect. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 13:1970;243-266.
15. Hull C.L. Principles of Behavior. 1943;Appleton-Century, New York.
16. Holland P.C., Forbes D.T. Representation-mediated extinction of conditioned flavor aversions. Learn. Motivat. 13:1982;454-471.
17. Jenkins H.M., Barnes R.A., Barrera F.J. Why autoshaping depends on trial spacing. Locurto C.M., Terrace H.S., Gibbon J. Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory. 1981;225-284 Academic Press, New York.
18. Kamin L.J. 'Attention-like' processes in classical conditioning. Jones M.R. Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive Stimulation. 1988;9-33 University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL.
19. Killeen P.R. Mathematical principles of reinforcement. Behav. Brain Sci. 17:1994;105-135.
20. Killeen P.R., Bizo L.A. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5:1998;221-238.
21. Lattal K.A., Gleeson S. Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 16:1990;27-39.
22. Lieberman D.A., McIntosh D.C., Thomas G.V. Learning when reward is delayed: a marking hypothesis. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 5:1979;224-242.
23. Logan F. Incentive: How the Conditions of Reinforcement Affect the Performance of Rats. 1960;Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
24. Mazur J.E. Choice, delay, probability, and conditioned reinforcement. Anim. Learn. Behav. 25:1997;131-147.
25. Mazur J.E. Choice and self-control. Lattal K.A., Perone M. Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior. 1998;131-161 Plenum Press, New York.
26. Mowrer O.H. Learning Theory and Behavior. 1960;Wiley, New York.
27. Neuringer A.J. Superstitious key pecking after three peck-produced reinforcements. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 13:1970;127-134.
28. Papini M.R., Bitterman M.E. The role of contingency in classical conditioning. Psychol. Rev. 97:1990;396-403.
29. Pearce J.M., Hall G. The influence of context-reinforcer associations on instrumental performance. Anim. Learn. Behav. 7:1979;504-508.
30. Rachlin H., Baum W.M. Response rate as a function of the amount of reinforcement for a signalled concurrent response. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 12:1969;11-16.
31. Rachlin H., Baum W.M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 18:1972;232-241.
32. Reed P., Reilly S. Context extinction following conditioning with delayed reward enhances subsequent instrumental responding. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 16:1990;48-55.
33. Reid A.K., Bacha G., Moran C. The temporal organization of behavior on periodic food schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 59:1993;1-27.
34. Rescorla R.A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychol. Rev. 74:1967;71-80.
35. Rescorla R.A. Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 66:1968;1-5.
36. Rescorla R.A., Solomon R.L. Two-process learning theory: relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychol. Rev. 74:1967;151-182.
37. Skinner B.F. Superstition in the pigeon. J. Exp. Psychol. 38:1948;168-172.
38. Skinner B.F. Science and Human Behavior. 1953;Free Press, New York.
39. Staddon J.E.R., Simmelhag V.G. The 'superstition' experiment: a reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychol. Rev. 78:1971;3-43.
40. Timberlake W. The behavior of organisms: purposive behavior as a type of reflex. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 50:1988;305-317.
41. Timberlake W., Lucas G.A. The basis of superstitious behavior: chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior? J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 44:1985;279-299.
42. Williams B.A. The blocking of reinforcement control. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 24:1975;215-225.
43. Williams B.A. The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 26:1976;441-449.
44. Williams B.A. Information effects on the response-reinforcer association. Anim. Learn. Behav. 6:1978;371-379.
45. Williams B.A. Blocking the response-reinforcer association. Commons M., Herrnstein R., Wagner A. Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Acquisition. 3:1982;427-445 Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA.
46. Williams B.A. Reinforcement, choice, and response strength. Atkinson R.C., Herrnstein R.J., Lindzey G., Luce R.D. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology. 2nd edition :1988;167-244 Wiley, New York.
47. Williams B.A. Signal duration and suppression of operant responding by free reinforcement. Learn. Motivat. 20:1989;335-357.
48. Williams B.A. The effects of response contingency and reinforcement identity on response suppression by alternative reinforcement. Learn. Motivat. 20:1989;204-224.
49. Williams B.A. Molar versus local reinforcement probability as determinants of stimulus value. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 59:1993;163-172.
50. Williams B.A. Contingency theory and the effect of the duration of signals for noncontingent reinforcement. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1:1994;111-114.
51. Williams B.A. Blocking the response-reinforcer association: theoretical implications. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 6:1999;618-623.
52. Williams B.A., Royalty P. A test of the melioration theory of matching. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 15:1989;99-113.