Abstract
Two experiments investigated the role of temporal contiguity in college students' responding to and rating of contingency relations during operant conditioning. Schedules were devised that determined when but not whether appetitive or aversive events would occur. Subjects' reports concerning the schedules were obtained by means of a 200-point rating scale, anchored by the phrases “prevents the light from occurring” (−100) and “causes the light to occur” (+100). When tapping a telegraph key advanced the time of point gain, responding was maintained or increased and subjects gave positive ratings. When tapping a telegraph key advanced the time of point loss, subjects also gave positive ratings, but responding now decreased. When key tapping delayed the time of point gain, responding decreased and subjects gave negative ratings. When key tapping delayed the time of point loss, subjects also gave negative ratings, but responding now increased. These findings implicate response-outcome contiguity as an important contributor to causal perception and to reinforcement and punishment effects. Other accounts—such as those stressing the local probabilistic relation between response and outcome or the molar correlation between response rate and outcome rate—were seen to be less preferred interpretations of these and other results.
Keywords: contingency relations, response-outcome contiguity, causal perception, ratings of contingency, delay of outcome, college students, telegraph-key tap
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Alloy L. B., Abramson L. Y. Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? J Exp Psychol Gen. 1979 Dec;108(4):441–485. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.108.4.441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W. M. The correlation-based law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gardner E. T., Lewis P. Negative reinforcement with shock-frequency increase. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jan;25(1):3–14. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gibbon J., Berryman R., Thompson R. L. Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):585–605. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hammond L. J. The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Nov;34(3):297–304. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hineline P. N. Negative reinforcement without shock reduction. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Nov;14(3):259–268. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hursh S. R., Fantino E. Relative delay of reinforcement and choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):437–450. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Killeen P. R. Superstition: a matter of bias, not detectability. Science. 1978 Jan 6;199(4324):88–90. doi: 10.1126/science.199.4324.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lewis P., Gardner E. T., Hutton L. Integrated delays to shock as negative reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):379–386. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moore J. Choice and transformed interreinforcement intervals. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Sep;42(2):321–335. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- RENNER K. E. DELAYED OF REINFORCEMENT: A HISTORICAL REVIEW. Psychol Bull. 1964 May;61:341–361. doi: 10.1037/h0048335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rachlin H., Baum W. M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):231–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shull R. L., Spear D. J., Bryson A. E. Delay or rate of food delivery as determiners of response rate. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Mar;35(2):129–143. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vaughan W., Jr, Miller H. L., Jr Optimization versus response-strength accounts of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Sep;42(2):337–348. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]