Abstract
In his effort to distinguish operant from respondent conditioning, Skinner stressed the lack of an eliciting stimulus and rejected the prevailing stereotype of Pavlovian “stimulus—response” psychology. But control by antecedent stimuli, whether classified as conditional or discriminative, is ubiquitous in the natural setting. With both respondent and operant behavior, symmetrical gradients of generalization along unrelated dimensions may be obtained following differential reinforcement in the presence and the absence of the stimulus. The slopes of these gradients serve as measures of stimulus control, and they can be steepened without applying differential reinforcement to any two points along the test dimension. Increases and decreases in stimulus control occur under the same conditions as those leading to increases and decreases in observing responses, indicating that it is the increasing frequency and duration of observation (and perhaps also of attention) that produces the separation in performances during discrimination learning.
Keywords: stimulus, discrimination, generalization, gradients, observing
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- DINSMOOR J. A. The effect of hunger on discriminated responding. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1952 Jan;47(1):67–72. doi: 10.1037/h0061273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DINSMOOR J. A. The effect of periodic reinforcement of bar-pressing in the presence of a discriminative stimulus. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1951 Aug;44(4):354–361. doi: 10.1037/h0060006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dinsmoor J. A. The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):365–381. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Farthing G. W., Hearst E. Generalization gradients of inhibition after different amounts of training. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):743–752. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- GUTTMAN N., KALISH H. I. Discriminability and stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol. 1956 Jan;51(1):79–88. doi: 10.1037/h0046219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hearst E. Discrimination learning as the summation of excitation and inhibition. Science. 1968 Dec 13;162(3859):1303–1306. doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hearst E., Koresko M. B. Stimulus generalization and amount of prior training on variable-interval reinforcement. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1968 Aug;66(1):133–138. doi: 10.1037/h0025992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Honig W. K. The role of discrimination training in the generalization of punishment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jul;9(4):377–384. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- JENKINS H. M., HARRISON R. H. Effect of discrimination training on auditory generalization. J Exp Psychol. 1960 Apr;59:246–253. doi: 10.1037/h0041661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marsh G. Prediction of the peak shift in pigeons from gradients of excitation and inhibition. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1972 Nov;81(2):262–266. doi: 10.1037/h0033538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Millenson J. R., Dent J. G. Habituation of conditioned suppression. Q J Exp Psychol. 1971 Feb;23(1):126–134. doi: 10.1080/00335557143000130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rescorla R. A. Pavlovian conditioning. It's not what you think it is. Am Psychol. 1988 Mar;43(3):151–160. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.43.3.151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- TERRACE H. S. Discrimination learning with and without "errors". J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jan;6:1–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weisman R. G., Palmer J. A. Factors influencing inhibitory stimulus control: discrimination training and prior non-differential reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Mar;12(2):229–237. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]