Three experiments examined the effect of context conditioning on the acquisition of freeoperant lever pressing by hungry rats when the presentation of the food reinforcer was delayed for 32 sec. The first study replicated the preexposure effect reported by Dickinson, Watt, and Griffiths (1992): Exposure to the contextual cues with the lever withdrawn prior to each instrumental training session enhanced acquisition, an effect that was attenuated by the presentation of non-contingent reinforcement during the preexposure periods. Signalling the non-contingent reinforcers during the preexposure periods with a brief auditory stimulus enhanced acquisition in a second study, suggesting that the non-contingent reinforcement interferes with acquisition through context conditioning. The final study confirmed this conclusion using a within-subject procedure in which pressing different levers was reinforced in two contexts, one of which was also associated with non-contingent reinforcers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumW. M. (1973). The correlational-based law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior20, 137–143.
2.
BeattyW. W.MakiW. S. (1979). Acquisition of instrumental responding following noncontingent reinforcement: Failure to observe “learned laziness” in rats.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society13, 268–271.
3.
ChengP. W.NovickL. R. (1991). Causes versus enabling conditions.Cognition40, 83–120.
4.
ChengP. W.NovickL. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction.Psychological Review99, 365–382.
5.
CritchfieldT. S.LattalK. A. (1993). Acquisition of a spatially defined operant with delayed reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior59, 373–387.
6.
DickinsonA.CharnockD. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology37B, 397–416.
7.
DickinsonA.MulateroC. W. (1989). Reinforcer specificity of the suppression of instrumental performance on a non-contingent schedule.Behavioural Processes19, 167–180.
8.
DickinsonA.WattA.GriffithsW. J. H. (1992). Free-operant acquisition with delayed reinforcement.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology45B, 241–258.
9.
GansenR.PearceJ. M. (1988). Effect of changing the unconditioned stimulus on appetitive blocking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes14, 280–291.
10.
HammondL. J. (1980). The effects of contingencies upon appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior34, 297–304.
11.
HammondL. J.PaynterW. E.Jr. (1983). Probabilistic contingency theories of animal conditioning: A critical analysis.Learning and Motivation14, 527–550.
12.
HammondL. J.WeinbergM. (1984). Signaling unearned reinforcers removes suppression produced by a zero correlation in an operant paradigm.Animal Learning and Behavior12, 371–374.
13.
LattalK. A.GleesonS. (1990). Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes16, 27–39.
14.
MackintoshN. J.DickinsonA. (1979). Instrumental (Type II) conditioning.Mechanisms of learning and motivation.DickinsonA.BoakesR. A.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.143–170.
15.
MillerR. R.SchachtmanT. R. (1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition.Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition.MillerR. R.SpearN. E.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.51–88.
16.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1979). The influence of context-reinforcer associations on instrumental performance.Animal Learning and Behavior7, 504–508.
17.
ReedP.ReillyS. (1990). Context extinction following conditioning with delayed reward enhances subsequent instrumental responding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes16, 48–55.
18.
RescorlaR. A.SolomonR. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning.Psychological Review74, 151–182.
19.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement.Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory.BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts64–99.
20.
RevuskyS. H. (1971). The role of interference in association over a delay.Animal memory.HonigW. K.JamesP. H. R.New York: Academic Press155–213.
21.
SchlingerH. D.Jr.BlakelyE. (1994). The effects of delayed reinforcement and a response-produced auditory stimulus on the acquisition of operant behavior in rats.Psychological Record44, 391–409.
22.
SkinnerB. F. (1938). The behavior of organismsNew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
23.
WheatleyK. L.WelkerR. L.MilesR. C. (1977). Acquisition of bar pressing in rats following experience with response-independent food.Animal Learning and Behavior5, 236–242.
24.
WilkenfieldJ.NickelM.BlakelyE.PolingA. (1992). Acquisition of lever-press responding in rats with delayed reinforcement: A comparison of three procedures.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior58, 431–443.
25.
WilliamsB. A. (1989a). Signal duration and suppression of operant responding by free reinforcement.Learning and Motivation20, 335–357.
26.
WilliamsB. A. (1989b). The effect of response contingency and reinforcement identity on response suppression by alternative reinforcement.Learning and Motivation20, 204–224.
27.
WilliamsB. A. (1994). Blocking despite changes in reinforcer identity.Animal Learning and Behavior22, 442–457.
