Variations in the Sensitivity of Instrumental Responding to Reinforcer Devaluation

Abstract

In five experiments hungry rats were trained to make a lever press response for a sucrose reinforcer. That sucrose was subsequently devalued by conditioning a food-aversion to it, and the ability of the rats to integrate knowledge about the instrumental contingency with that gained from aversion training was assessed in an extinction test. Experiment I showed successful integration following limited but not extended instrumental training. Experiment II suggested that the crucial factor was the spacing of training; successful integration was seen after massed but not distributed training. The third experiment implicated distributed experience with the reinforcer, rather than distributed response practice, in failures of integration. Experiment IV showed that if the distribution of food-aversion learning was dissimilar to that of instrumental training then a failure of integration could result; this finding was able to account for the distribution of training effects seen in previous studies, but not the effect of extended training. Experiment V replicated the extended training effect seen in Experiment I, and provided evidence that this may reflect the degree of exposure to the reinforcer rather than the extent of response practice.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

C. D.

(1980). Post-conditioning devaluation of an instrumental reinforcer has no effect on extinction performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32, 447–58.

Adams

C. D.

Dickinson

(1981a). Instrumental responding following reinforcer devaluation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33B, 109–21.

Adams

C. D.

Dickinson

(1981b). Actions and habits: Variations in associative representations during instrumental learning. Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms. Spear

N. E.

Miller

R. R.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Asratyan

E. A.

(1974). Conditioned reflex theory and motivational behaviour. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 34, 15–31.

Bolles

R. C.

(1972). Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review 79, 394–409.

Chen

J.-S.

Amsel

(1980). Recall (versus recognition) of taste and immunization against aversive taste anticipations based on illness. Science 209, 851–3.

Dickinson

(1980). Contemporary Animal Learning Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holland

P. C.

Rescorla

R. A.

(1975). The effect of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after first- and second-order conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 1, 355–63.

Holland

P. C.

Straub

J. J.

(1979). Differential effects of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after Pavlovian appetitive conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 5, 67–78.

10.

Holman

E. W.

(1975). Some conditions for dissociation of consummatory and instrumental behavior in rats. Learning and Motivation 6, 358–66.

11.

Irwin

F. W.

(1971). Intentional Behavior and Motivation: A Cognitive Theory Philadelphia: Lippincott.

12.

Kimble

G. A.

Perlmuter

L. C.

(1970). The problem of volition. Psychological Review 77, 361–84.

13.

Mackintosh

N. J.

Dickinson

(1979). Instrumental (Type II) conditioning:. Mechanisms of Learning and Motivation. Dickinson

Boakes

R. A.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Earlbaum.

14.

Mikulka

P. J.

Klein

S. D.

(1977). The effect of CS familiarisation and extinction procedures on the resistance to extinction of a taste-aversion. Behavioral Biology 19, 518–22.

15.

Miller

N. E.

(1935). A reply to ‘sign-gestalt or conditioned reflex’. Psychological Review 42, 280–92.

16.

Morrison

G. R.

Collyer

(1974). Taste-mediated aversion to an exteroceptive stimulus following LiCl poisoning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 86, 51–5.

17.

Mowrer

O. H.

(1960). Learning Theory and Behavior New York: Wiley.

18.

Rescorla

R. A.

(1977). Pavlovian second-order conditioning: Some implications for instrumental behavior. Operant-Pavlovian Interactions. Davis

Hurwitz

H. M. B.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

19.

Rescorla

R. A.

Solomon

R. L.

(1967). Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review 74, 151–82.

20.

Rozeboom

W. W.

(1957). Secondary extinction of lever-pressing behavior in the albino rat. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54, 280–7.

21.

Rozeboom

W. W.

(1958). “What is learned?”—an empirical enigma. Psychological Review 65, 22–33.

22.

Tolman

E. C.

(1932). Purposive Behavior in Man and Animals New York: Century.

23.

Tolman

E. C.

(1933). Sign-gestalt or conditioned reflex?. Psychological Review 40, 246–55.

24.

Tolman

E. C.

Gleitman

(1949). Studies in learning and motivation. I. Equal reinforcements in both end-boxes followed by shock in one. Journal of Experimental Psychology 39, 810–9.

25.

Trapold

M. A.

Overmier

J. B.

(1972). The second learning process in instrumental learning. Classical Conditioning. II. Current Research and Theory. Black

A. H.

Prokasy

W. F.

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

26.

Wilson

C. L.

Sherman

J. E.

Holman

E. W.

(1981). An aversion to the reinforcer differentially affects conditioned reinforcement and instrumental responding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 7, 165–74.