Premium
Signaling added response‐independent reinforcement to assess Pavlovian processes in resistance to change and relapse
Author(s) -
Podlesnik Christopher A.,
Fleet James D.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1002/jeab.96
Subject(s) - reinforcement , psychology , classical conditioning , stimulus (psychology) , conditioning , stimulus control , extinction (optical mineralogy) , developmental psychology , operant conditioning , neutral stimulus , conditioned response , cognitive psychology , neuroscience , social psychology , mathematics , paleontology , statistics , nicotine , biology
Behavioral momentum theory asserts Pavlovian stimulus–reinforcer relations govern the persistence of operant behavior. Specifically, resistance to conditions of disruption (e.g., extinction, satiation) reflects the relation between discriminative stimuli and the prevailing reinforcement conditions. The present study assessed whether Pavlovian stimulus–reinforcer relations govern resistance to disruption in pigeons by arranging both response‐dependent and ‐independent food reinforcers in two components of a multiple schedule. In one component, discrete‐stimulus changes preceded response‐independent reinforcers, paralleling methods that reduce Pavlovian conditioned responding to contextual stimuli. Compared to the control component with no added stimuli preceding response‐independent reinforcement, response rates increased as discrete‐stimulus duration increased (0, 5, 10, and 15 s) across conditions. Although resistance to extinction decreased as stimulus duration increased in the component with the added discrete stimulus, further tests revealed no effect of discrete stimuli, including other disrupters (presession food, intercomponent food, modified extinction) and reinstatement designed to control for generalization decrement. These findings call into question a straightforward conception that the stimulus–reinforcer relations governing resistance to disruption reflect the same processes as Pavlovian conditioning, as asserted by behavioral momentum theory.