The Influence of Generalization Decrement on the Outcome of a Feature-Positive Discrimination

Abstract

In a feature-positive discrimination subjects receive training in which reinforced presentations of a compound, AB⁺, are intermixed among non-reinforced presentations of one element, A^o. The three reported experiments compared the results of this procedure when using a light or a tone as the feature-positive stimulus, B. In all three experiments, the tone elicited a stronger conditioned response than the light when it was presented alone. The main concern of Experiments 2 and 3 was to examine whether this effect was due to training being incomplete for subjects receiving the light as the B element. In Experiment 2 it was found that extended discrimination training did not diminish the difference between the properties of the light and the tone. Experiment 3 revealed that this effect was not due to differences in the asymptotic associative strength of either A or the compound. It is argued that these results are not readily compatible with contemporary theories of learning, and an alternative account is presented.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bellingham

W. P.

Gillette

(1981). Spontaneous configuring to a tone–light compound using appetitive training. Learning and Motivation 12, 420–434.

Hull

C. L.

(1943). Principles of behaviour New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

James

J. H.

Wagner

A. R.

(1980). One-trial overshadowing: Evidence of distributive processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes 6, 188–205.

Kamin

L. J.

(1969). Selective association and conditioning. Fundamental issues in associative learning. Mackintosh

N. J.

Honig

W. K.

Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.

Kehoe

E. J.

(1982). Overshadowing and summation in compound stimulus conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behaviour Processes 8, 313–328.

Kirk

R. E.

(1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural sciences Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1975). A theory of attention: Variations of the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review 82, 276–298.

Pavlov

I. P.

(1927). Conditioned reflexes Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pearce

J. M.

Hall

(1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review 87, 532–552.

10.

Razran

(1971). Mind in evolution Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

11.

Rescorla

R. A.

(1973). Evidence for “unique stimulus” account of configural conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 85, 331–338.

12.

Rescorla

R. A.

Wagner

A. R.

(1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. Black

A. H.

Prokasy

W. F.

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

13.

Sjoden

P. O.

Archer

(1983). Potentiation of a bottle aversion by taste in compound conditioning with rats. Experimental Animal Behaviour 2, 1–18.

14.

Wagner

A. R.

(1969). Stimulus validity and stimulus selection in associative learning. Fundamental issues in associative learning. Mackintosh

N. J.

Honig

W. K.

Halifax: Dalhousie University Press.

15.

Wagner

A. R.

(1971). Elementary associations. Essays in neobehaviourism: A memorial volume to Kenneth W. Spence. Kendler

H. H.

Spence

J. T.

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.