Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Behavior Analyst logoLink to The Behavior Analyst
. 1997 Fall;20(2):121–128. doi: 10.1007/BF03392769

The response—stimulus contingency and reinforcement learning as a context for considering two non-behavior-analytic views of contingency learning

Jacob L Gewirtz
PMCID: PMC2733549  PMID: 22478286

Abstract

This paper introduces a special section on the contingency. Bower and Watson were invited to present their views of contingency learning in human infants from outside the context of behavior analysis, and Cigales, Marr, and Lattal and Shahan provided commentaries that point out some of the more interesting and controversial aspects of those views from a behavior-analytic perspective. The debate turns on how to conceptualize the response—stimulus contingency of operant learning. The present paper introduces the contingency concept and contingency detection by subjects, as well as research practices in behavior analysis, in a context in which the dependency between infant responding and the presentation of environmental consequences may be disrupted through procedures in which ordinarily consequent events occur before the response or in its absence. These points can relate to and serve as an introduction to the Bower and Watson papers on infant contingency learning as well as to the three commentaries that follow.

Keywords: contingency, infant operant learning, reinforcement

Full text

PDF
121

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bower T. G. Contingencies, logic, and learning. Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;20(2):141–148. doi: 10.1007/BF03392771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cigales M. Intersections of behavior analysis with cognitive models of contingency detection. Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;20(2):161–166. doi: 10.1007/BF03392774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Egel A. L., Richman G. S., Koegel R. L. Normal peer models and autistic children's learning. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Spring;14(1):3–12. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Galbicka G., Platt J. R. Interresponse-time punishment: a basis for shock-maintained behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 May;41(3):291–308. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Galbicka G., Platt J. R. Response-reinforcer contingency and spatially defined operants: testing an invariance property of phi. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Jan;51(1):145–162. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gewirtz J. L., Peláez-Nogueras M. B. F. Skinner's legacy to human infant behavior and development. Am Psychol. 1992 Nov;47(11):1411–1422. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.47.11.1411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lattal K. A., Shahan T. A. Differing views of contingencies: How contiguous? Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;20(2):149–154. doi: 10.1007/BF03392772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Marr J. Infants' feats of inference: A commentary on Bower and Watson. Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;20(2):155–159. doi: 10.1007/BF03392773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Reeve L., Reeve K. F., Poulson C. L. A parametric variation of delayed reinforcement in infants. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Nov;60(3):515–527. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Watson J. S. Contingency and its two indices within conditional probability analysis. Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;20(2):129–140. doi: 10.1007/BF03392770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Behavior Analyst are provided here courtesy of Association for Behavior Analysis International

RESOURCES