Perhaps psycholog~cts occasionally forget, as the data continue to accumulate, how simply an expectancy theory can approach a problem that may be very resistant to a reinforcement viewpoint (Ritchie, 1951; Solomon & Wynne, 1954). The following thumbnail sketch might serve as a useful reminder. In reward training and its extinction, S commonly experiences a sequence of stimulus changes terminated by an appropriate incentive; he then experiences that same sequence of events now terminated by the absence of that incentive. But such rarely occurs during extinction following avoidance training: S commonly avoids belore the complete sequence of events leading to the now-absent aversive stimulus can elapse. Thus the extinction procednre, as exemplified by extinction following reward training, may not even occur. This suggests that rhe greater persistence of the response frequently observed following avoidance training is not necessarily a reflection of the uniqueness of avoidance training but may merely indicate the absence of interference. The present interpretation is clearly an expectancy-interference one, with the expectancy permanent and the resulting behavior modifiable only by means of new and conrradictory expecrancies. No unique concepts are needed here; to the degree that the initial expectancy encounters no opposing acquisitional process, to rhat degree the behavior will not be altered. To obtain true extinction then, S must experience the same or a very similar srimulus sequence rhar he did during training but now discover the absence of the outcome of that sequence. S has every reason to cooperate with E during extinction following reward training to satisfy this requirement, and so he extinguishes rapidly, but little reason to do so following avoidance training, and hence the relatively greater resistance to extinction. E may, of course, attempt to accelerate avoidance extinction by physically forcing S to submit to the extinction procedure or by piwishing S for not doing so (Solomon, Kamin, & Wynne, 1953). But forcing can easily introduce distinctive changes inro the sequence oE events and thus lead to discrimination learning on the part of S rather than true exrincrion: when that force and its attendant cues are removed, the avoidance response may again reveal itself. Nor can punishment for avoiding interfere in any direct way with S's expectancy of punishment for not avoiding. And, in terms of delay, the immediate expectancy for not avoiding may well be more decisive than the eventual outcome for avoiding. REFERENCES RITCHIE, B. F. Can reinforcement theory account for avoidance? Psychol. Rev., 1951, 58, 382-386. SOLOMON, R. L., KAMIN, L. J., & WYNNE, L. C. Traumatic avoidance learning: the outcomes of several excinccion procedures with dogs. I. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1953, 48, 291-302. SOLOMON, R. L., & WYNNE, L. C. Traumatic avoidance learning: the principles of anxiety conservation and partial irreversibility. Psychol. Rev., 1954, 61, 353-385.
Read full abstract
Jun 1, 2020
Ali Turab + 1
Open Access