Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Behavior Analyst logoLink to The Behavior Analyst
. 1997 Fall;20(2):149–154. doi: 10.1007/BF03392772

Differing views of contingencies: How contiguous?

Kennon A Lattal, Timothy A Shahan
PMCID: PMC2733556  PMID: 22478289

Abstract

The contingency between environmental events and behavior has proven to be a useful concept in the study of both behavior and cognition. There is common ground in the definition of contingency in both domains, but interpretations of the basis of its action differ. For behavior analysts the contingency acts through both its direct, response-strengthening effect and indirectly through its function as a discriminative stimulus. Cognitive accounts, as represented in the work of both Bower and Watson, focus more on the organism's detection and interpretation of the contingency as the basis of its action. Despite such conceptual differences, Watson's quantitative descriptions of contingency effects seem relevant to feedback functions that describe reinforcement schedule performance and, as such, may bear on research involving combinations of response-dependent and response-independent food presentations and on superstitious behavior.

Keywords: contingency, contiguity, response-independent events, superstitious behavior

Full text

PDF
149

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. GREENSPOON J. The reinforcing effect of two spoken sounds on the frequency of two responses. Am J Psychol. 1955 Sep;68(3):409–416. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gleeson S., Lattal K. A. Response-reinforcer relations and the maintenance of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Nov;48(3):383–393. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. HEFFERLINE R. F., KEENAN B., HARFORD R. A. Escape and avoidance conditioning in human subjects without their observation of the response. Science. 1959 Nov 13;130(3385):1338–1339. doi: 10.1126/science.130.3385.1338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Herrnstein R. J., Hineline P. N. Negative reinforcement as shock-frequency reduction. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jul;9(4):421–430. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. Lattal K. A., Bryan A. J. Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):495–504. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lattal K. A. Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):357–362. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lattal K. A. Contingency and behavior analysis. Behav Anal. 1995 Fall;18(2):209–224. doi: 10.1007/BF03392709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lattal K. A., Poling A. D. Describing response-event relations: Babel revisited. Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;4(2):143–152. doi: 10.1007/BF03391861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lattal K. A. Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Mar;23(2):241–246. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lattal K. A. Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli: II. Effects of changes in stimulus probability. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nevin J. A., Baum W. M. Feedback functions for variable-interval reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Sep;34(2):207–217. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Rescorla R. A. Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures. Psychol Rev. 1967 Jan;74(1):71–80. doi: 10.1037/h0024109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rosenfeld H. M., Baer D. M. Unbiased and unnoticed verbal conditioning: the double agent robot procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jul;14(1):99–105. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. SKINNER B. F. Superstition in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol. 1948 Apr;38(2):168–172. doi: 10.1037/h0055873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):119–125. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):169–175. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. 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]
  23. Williams B. A. The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):441–449. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Zeiler M. D. Elimination of reinforced behavior: intermittent schedules of not-responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):23–32. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Zeiler M. D. Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jul;11(4):405–414. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zeiler M. D. Positive reinforcement and the elimination of reinforced responses. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jul;26(1):37–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES