Untitled

Respondent–Operant Interrelationships

Behavioral Objectives

  • Objective 1: Describe how operant and respondent contingencies interrelate.

  • Objective 2: Explain the processes of sign tracking, autoshaping, and negative auto-maintenance.

  • Objective 3: Learn about the biological context of conditioning and taste aversion learning.

Definitions and Concepts

  • Operants and Respondents:

    • Defined by experimental procedures that produce them.

    • Conditioning is often categorized as either respondent or operant for simplicity.

    • In reality, most conditioning involves an interaction between both types of learning.

Biological Context of Conditioning

  • Species-characteristic behavior can occasionally be elicited alongside operant behaviors.

  • Respondent procedures may be embedded within operant contingencies of reinforcement.

  • Operant and respondent behaviors are biologically inherent to the organism.

  • Natural Selection:

    • It has shaped species-characteristic responses (reflexes, Fixed Action Patterns (FAPs)) and fundamental mechanisms of respondent and operant conditioning.

The Breland and Breland Demonstration

  • Instinctive Drift:

    • Empirical study involving training animals where instinctual behaviors interfered with operant conditioning.

    • Example:

    • Raccoons struggled to learn to deposit coins in a box, as they exhibited instinctive rubbing behavior instead.

    • Observed phenomena included species-specific responses like rubbing rather than executing the desired operant behavior (dropping coins).

Respondent Contingencies Override Operant Regulation

  • Respondent procedures can be intertwined with operant tasks.

  • Example of Interaction:

    • Conditioned Stimulus (CS) coins + Unconditioned Stimulus (US) food lead to a Conditioned Response (CR) of rubbing.

    • Presentation of food strengthens the CS-coins → CR-rub association.

Intrusion of Reflexive Behavior

  • Reflexive behavior may be directly elicited by operant procedures due to reinforcement contingencies.

  • In some instances, reflexive behavior is prompted by respondent procedures within operant frameworks.

Sign Tracking

  • Defined as the tendency of an organism to approach a stimulus that signals an important biological event (like food).

  • The CS comes to associate with the US, leading to food-related responses (CR).

  • Chain of Responses:

    • The signal serves as conditional reinforcement, prompting the organism to approach and engage in “food-soliciting” actions rather than directly approaching the food dish.

Autoshaping

  • Procedure designed to teach pigeons to peck a response key without manual shaping.

  • Brown and Jenkins (1968) Method:

    • Following a 8-second illumination of the key light (Neutral Stimulus - NS), food (US) is delivered.

    • Result: Pigeons start to orient and peck at the illuminated key.

  • Typically, pecking immediately switches off the light, activating the feeder, thus demonstrating that respondent control can merge with operant contingencies.

Cumulative Responses and Graphical Representation

  • Example of Auto-shaping in Lab: A graph illustrating cumulative responses over sessions involving various Pigeon strains (e.g. SHR-201, WKY-1011).

  • Differences in cumulative responses were monitored documenting shaping effectiveness.

Respondent vs. Operant Behavior in Autoshaping

  • Respondent Behavior:

    • US-food leads to UR-peck.

    • CS-light combined with US-food results in a UR-peck and ultimately a CR-peck.

  • Operant Behavior:

    • SD-light leads to R-peck which is reinforced by food; this links key-pecking directly to food presentation.

Contingencies and Species-Specific Behavior

  • Concepts such as instinctive drift, autoshaping, and sign tracking encapsulate species-specific behaviors elicited by biologically pertinent stimuli.

  • Stimulus Substitution:

    • Principle suggesting that CS substitutes or generalizes from US, but has certain limitations such as:

    • Reflex laws may not fully apply to CS → CR relationships.

    • Some CRs can be contrary to URs.

    • Inconsistencies in autoshaping experiments challenge this substitution idea.

Behavior System and Species-Specific Responses

  • Wasserman (1973) Study:

    • Autoshaping with chicks showed unique responses to light (CS) and heat (US).

    • Responding to heat was distinct from reacting to light, presenting challenges to the stimulus substitution theory.

  • Timberlake (1983, 1993):

    • Proposed a behavior system encompassing varied USs leading to specific response patterns based on physical stimulus characteristics.

Operant Conditioning of Reflexive Behavior

  • Miller and Carmona (1967):

    • Investigated dogs deprived of water, monitoring salivation through operant conditioning.

    • Two groups: One reinforced for increased salivation; the other for decreased.

    • Results showed salivation levels matched the defined contingencies, with noticeable behavioral changes linked to the arousal or attentiveness of the dogs.

Evidence for Operant Conditioning of Reflexive Actions

  • Reflects that certain reflexively governed behaviors can indeed be modified through operant procedures.

Taste Aversion Learning

  • Defined as a behavioral tendency to avoid specific tastes (CSs) associated with illness (US).

  • Species Preparedness Perspective:

    • Different species have tailored predispositions for learning certain CS-US associations.

  • Garcia and Koelling (1966) Study:

    • Thirsty rats presented with blue-salty water (CS) later coupled with illness (US) exhibited distinct avoidance patterns post-recovery.

Preparedness to Learn

  • Suggests certain species are intrinsically prepared to learn specific associations.

  • Example from Garcia and Koelling:

    • Rats displayed taste aversions to certain stimuli contingent upon the nature of the pairing (e.g., flavor versus visual stimulation).

Context of Conditioning

  • Considerations include:

    • Evolutionary history, ontogenetic development, and the current neuropsychological state of the organism at the time of conditioning.

  • Importance of Context:

    • Effectiveness of behavior regulated by contingencies fluctuates depending on the organism's individual history, impacting generalization across different species.

Additional Findings on Taste Aversion Learning

  • Studies (Revusky and Garcia, 1970):

    • Evaluated the extent of CS-US intervals on aversion learning, noting up to 12-hour separations could still yield aversion responses.

  • Novel flavors and contexts can accelerated conditioning outcomes in taste aversion scenarios.

  • Real-world human application showcased with common taste aversion cases.

Conclusion and Implications

  • The findings reinforce the significance of biological and environmental contexts in shaping learned behaviors across species, reflecting broader implications for understanding conditioning processes in both research and applicable scenarios.

Questions for Review

  • Q1: Discuss operant contingencies and reflexive behavior interactions.

  • Q2: Brown and Jenkins' conclusions on autoshaping.

  • Q3: Analyze instinctive drift, sign tracking, and autoshaping.

  • Q4: Explore operant conditioning of reflexive behavior as evidenced in Miller and Carmona's study.

  • Q5: Reflect upon evidence regarding reflexive behaviors in operant conditioning.

  • Q6: Identify terminology related to species preparedness in context of CS-US aversion results.