The role of signaled periods of nonreinforcement in responding on a random schedule in autoshaping |
| |
| Authors: | Steven J Robbins Robert A Rescorla |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3815 Walnut Street, 19104, Philadelphia, PA
|
| |
| Abstract: | Little responding develops to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that is placed in a random relation to an unconditioned stimulus (US). However, if the USs not preceded by that CS are themselves signaled by another stimulus, then the CS does come to elicit responding. This result has been attributed (e.g., by Durlach, 1983) to the signal’s blocking of conditioning to background cues that otherwise would prevent conditioning of the CS. However, Goddard and Jenkins (1987) have suggested the alternative that signaling the USs promotes responding due to the adventitious creation of periods of signaled nonreinforcement. Two experiments were conducted to assess this alternative, involving an autoshaping preparation in pigeons. In Experiment 1, little responding to a keylight CS presented in a random relation to a food US occurred, despite the explicit presentation of a discrete noise signaling periods of no food in the intertrial interval (ITI). Experiment 2 was designed to replicate the procedure of Goddard and Jenkins, in which an auditory stimulus extended throughout the ITI of a random schedule, terminating only prior to extra USs and during the CS. Contrary to their findings, little responding developed to the target CS. However, responding did develop when the sound-free period occurred only prior to the extra USs. These results offer little support for the hypothesis that signaled periods of nonreinforcement promote responding on random schedules. However, they are consistent with the view that signaling of ITI USs acts by preventing conditioning of potentially competitive background cues. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
