Premium
ANOTHER LOOK AT CONTRAST IN MULTIPLE SCHEDULES
Author(s) -
Williams Ben A.
Publication year - 1983
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 - 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-345
Subject(s) - reinforcement , expectancy theory , stimulus (psychology) , psychology , context (archaeology) , cognitive psychology , contingency , schedule , contrast (vision) , computer science , social psychology , artificial intelligence , paleontology , linguistics , philosophy , operating system , biology
Recent research on multiple schedule interactions is reviewed. Contrary to formulations that view contrast as the result of elicited behavior controlled by the stimulus‐reinforcer contingency (e.g., additivity theory), the major controlling variable is the relative rate of reinforcement, which cannot be reduced to some combination of stimulus‐reinforcer and response‐reinforcer effects. Other recent theoretical formulations are also reviewed and all are found to face serious counterevidence. The best description of the available data continues to be in terms of the “context of reinforcement,” but Herrnstein's (1970) formulation of the basis of such context effects appears to be inadequate. An alternative conception is provided by Catania's concept of “inhibition by reinforcement,” by which rate of responding is inversely related to the average rate of reinforcement in the situation. Such a conception is related to Gibbon's recent scalar‐expectancy account of autoshaping and Fantino's delay‐reduction model of conditioned reinforcement, suggesting that a common set of principles determines several diverse conditioning phenomena. However, the empirical status of such a description remains uncertain, because recent evidence shows that schedule interactions are temporally asymmetric, depending primarily upon the conditions of reinforcement that follow a schedule component.