Abstract
In the present study, excitatory backward conditioning was assessed in a conditioned reinforcement paradigm. The experiment was conducted with human subjects and consisted of five conditions. In all conditions, US reinforcing value (i.e. time reduction of a timer) was assessed in phase 1 using a concurrent FR schedule, with one response key leading to US presentation and the other key leading to no-US. In phase 2, two discrete stimuli, S+ and S−, were paired with US and no-US respectively using an operant contingency. For three groups, backward contingencies were arranged, and two of these were designed to rule out a trace (forward) conditioning interpretation of the results. The two other groups served as control conditions (forward and neutral conditions). Finally, in phase 3 for all groups the CSs were delivered in a concurrent FR schedule similar to phase 1, but with no US. Responding during phase 3 showed conditioned reinforcement effects and hence excitatory backward conditioning. Implications of the results for conditioned reinforcement models are discussed.
Highlights
Conditioned reinforcement is an old concept in the study of animal and human behavior
The first evidence of conditioned reinforcement was reported in the first half of the 20th century, notably in the studies conducted by Bugelski (1938) and Skinner (1938)
Explanations of conditioned reinforcement can be broadly divided into three hypotheses: (1) the conditioned reinforcement hypothesis, or CRH (Dinsmoor, 1983; Skinner, 1938, 1953), (2) the delay reduction theory, or Delay Reduction Theory (DRT) (Fantino, 2008; Fantino et al, 1993; Preston & Fantino, 1991), and (3) the signal hypothesis, or Signal Hypothesis (SH) (Bolles, 1975; Davison & Baum, 2006; Longstreth, 1971; Schuster, 1969; Shahan, 2010)
Summary
Conditioned reinforcement is an old concept in the study of animal and human behavior. Several studies conducted in Pavlovian paradigms (Ayres, Haddad, & Albert, 1987; Burkhardt, 1980; Chang, Blaisdell, & Miller, 2003; Heth, 1976; Mahoney & Ayres, 1976; Spetch, Wilkie, & Pinel, 1981; Spetch, Terlecki, Pinel, Wilkie, & Treit, 1982; Tait & Saladin, 1986) have shown that a backward CS can develop excitatory properties and control response elicitation, like freezing responses These results have been interpreted as incompatible with the classical associative learning theories cited above, because these models suppose that the CS has to be a nonredundant predictor of the US to become an excitatory CS (Arcediano, Escobar, & Miller, 2003). The implications of our results for theoretical models of conditioned reinforcement and associative learning are debated in the discussion section
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
