Conditioned Reinforcement: the Effectiveness of Stimulus—Stimulus Pairing and Operant Discrimination Procedures
- 359 Downloads
The purpose of the present experiment was to evaluate which method, stimulus–stimulus pairing or operant discrimination training, establishes neutral stimuli as more effective conditioned reinforcers, and to explore ways to maintain effects of the stimuli established as conditioned reinforcers. Four rats were exposed to an operant discrimination training procedure to establish a left-situated light as a conditioned reinforcer and to a stimulus–stimulus pairing procedure to establish a right-situated light as a conditioned reinforcer. Acquisition of new responses was then arranged to determine how formerly neutral stimuli could maintain responding when the unconditioned reinforcer (water) was presented intermittently in an experimental design similar to a concurrent-chain procedure. During this acquisition, two levers were concurrently available and presses on the left lever produced an operant discrimination trial (left light–response–water), whereas presses on the right lever produced a stimulus–stimulus pairing trial (right light–water). The results suggest that the operant discrimination training procedure was more effective in establishing a neutral stimulus as a conditioned reinforcer and also maintained a higher rate of responding over time.
KeywordsConditioned reinforcer Stimulus–stimulus pairing Operant discrimination training Intermittent water reinforcement Concurrent-chain procedure Rats
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The study was preapproved by the National Animal Research Authority (NARA) and was carried out according to the Norwegian laws and regulations controlling experiments/procedures using live animals with the identification number: id8278.
Some of the data were previously presented in a poster at the annual ABAI conference in Minneapolis in May 2013. This work has not been previously published nor is this work under consideration for publication elsewhere.
- Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2014). Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). Edinburgh gate. UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Fantino, E. (1977). Conditioned reinforcement: Choice and information. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 313–339). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Gollub, L. R. (1970). Conditioned reinforcement: Choice and information. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 288–312). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Greer, R. D., & Du, L. (2014). Identification and establishment of reinforcers that make the development of complex social language possible. International Journal of Behavior Analysis & Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(1), 13–34.Google Scholar
- Greer, R. D., Pistoljevic, N., Cahill, C., & Du, L. (2011). Effects of conditioning voices as reinforcers for listener responses on rate of learning, awareness, and preferences for listening to stories in preschoolers with autism. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 103–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Holth, P. (2011). Joint attention in behavior analysis. In E. A. Mayville & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Behavioral Foundations of Effective Autism Treatment (pp. 73–89). NY: Sloan: Cornwall-on-Hudson.Google Scholar
- Iversen, I. H., & Lattal, K. A. (Eds.). (1991). Experimental analysis of behavior (Vol. 6). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
- Kimble, G. A. (1961). Hilgard and Marquis' conditioning and learning. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
- Lovaas, O. I. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
- Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
- Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1991). The behavior of organisms. Acton, MA: Copley. (Original work published 1938).Google Scholar
- Sosa, R., dos Santos, C. V., & Flores, C. (2011). Training a new response using conditioned reinforcement. Behavioral Processes, 87(2), 231–236.Google Scholar
- Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analysts.Google Scholar