Discriminated response and incentive processes in operant conditioning: a two-factor model of stimulus control

Understanding stimulus control generated in instrumental learning requires the direct investigation of discriminated response and reinforcer (incentive) processes acquired exclusively through the response-reinforcer contingencies operating on complex (multicomponent) baselines. Two series of stimulus-compounding studies accomplished this direct investigation. In one series, the independent variable was the relative reinforcement between schedule components; in the second series, it was relative response rate between components. Stimulus-compounding tests revealed that response and incentive processes enhanced each other when in agreement, counteracted each other when in opposition, and produced intermediate results when only one factor was operating. This pattern of results led to the conclusion that these factors were algebraically combining and to the development of a response/incentive matrix reflecting these dynamics. This two-factor analysis was extended to the peak-shift effect in stimulus generalization experiments and to the generation of inhibitory control. Two decades of stimulus compounding and peak-shift research were organized within this two-factor framework, extending this traditional approach to learning to active research areas heretofore not systematically considered in these terms.     

Information about the model's unconditioned stimulus and response in vicarious classical conditioning.

Four groups with 16 observers each participated in a differential, vicarious conditioning experiment with skin conductance responses as the dependent variable. The information available to the observer about the model's unconditioned stimulus and response was varied in a 2 X 2 factorial design. Results clearly showed that information about the model's unconditioned stimulus (a high or low dB level) was not necessary for vicarious instigation, but that information about the unconditioned response (a high or low emotional aversiveness) was necessary. Data for conditioning of responses showed almost identical patterns to those for vicarious instigation. To explain the results, a distinction between factors necessary for the development and elicitation of vicariously instigated responses was introduced, and the effectiveness of information about the model's response on the elicitation of vicariously instigated responses was considered in terms of an expansion of Bandura's social learning theory.     

The effects of unconditional stimulus valence and conditioning paradigm on verbal,skeleto-motor,and autonomic indices of human Pavlovian conditioning

The effects of unconditional stimulus (US) valence (aversive electro-tactile stimulus vs. non-aversive imperative stimulus of a RT task) and conditioning paradigm (delay vs. trace) on affective learning as indexed by verbal ratings of conditional stimulus (CS) pleasantness and blink startle modulation and on relational learning as indexed by electrodermal responses were investigated. Affective learning was not affected by the conditioning paradigm; however, electrodermal responses and blink latency shortening indicated delayed learning in the trace procedure. Changes in rated CS pleasantness were found with the aversive US, but not with the non-aversive US. Differential conditioning as indexed by electrodermal responses and startle modulation was found regardless of US valence. The finding of significant differential blink modulation and electrodermal responding in the absence of a change in rated CS pleasantness as a result of conditioning with a non-aversive US was replicated in a second experiment. These results seem to indicate that startle modulation during conditioning is mediated by the arousal level of the anticipated US, rather than by the valence of the CS.     

Associative regulation of Pavlovian fear conditioning: unconditional stimulus intensity, incentive shifts, and latent inhibition.

Conditional stimuli (CS) associated with painful unconditional stimuli (US) produce a naloxone-reversible analgesia. The analgesia serves as a negative-feedback regulation of fear conditioning that can account for the impact of US intensity and CS predictiveness on Pavlovian fear conditioning. In Experiment 1 training under naloxone produced learning curves that approached the same high asymptote despite US intensity. Shifting drug treatment during acquisition had effects that paralleled US intensity shifts. In Experiment 3 naloxone reversed Hall-Pearce (1979) negative transfer using a contextual CS, indicating that conditional analgesia acquired during the CS-weak-footshock phase retards acquisition in the CS-strong-footshock phase. Experiment 5 used a tone CS in both a latent-inhibition and a negative-transfer procedure. Only negative transfer was blocked by naloxone. Therefore, negative transfer but not latent inhibition is mediated by a reduction of US processing.