Abstract
The present article presents a response rule developed to account for both positive and negative stimulus interaction. In the response rule proposed here, positive interaction phenomena (e.g., second-order conditioning) and negative interaction phenomena (e.g., Pavlovian conditioned inhibition) are presumed to occur during performance and acquisition, respectively. Also, in this rule the novelty of the test stimulus determines the expression of positive interaction on responding. As the stimulus loses its novelty over training, positive interaction effects will wane, which will allow negative interaction effects to emerge in responding elicited by the stimulus. It is proposed that this response rule can be adopted by acquisition-focused associative models (e.g., Rescorla & Wagner, 1972) in order to account for contrary associative phenomena in the literature. The simulation program used in this study is available for download from the author’s website and from the Psychonomic Society website at www.psychonomic.org/archive.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,15, 147–149.
Batson, J. D., &Batsell, W. R. (2000). Augmentation, not blocking, in an A+/AX+ flavor-conditioning procedure.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 466–471.
Brodgen, W. J. (1939). Sensory preconditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 323–332.
Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory.Psychological Review,104, 367–405.
Clarke, J., Westbrook, R. F., &Irwin, J. (1979). Potentiation instead of overshadowing in the pigeon.Behavioral & Neural Biology,25, 18–29.
Denniston, J. C., Savastano, H. I., &Miller, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.),Handbook of contemporary learning theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dickinson, A., &Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49B, 60–80.
Dickinson, A., Nicholas, D. J., &Mackintosh, N. J. (1983). A reexamination of one-trial blocking in conditioned suppression.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35B, 67–79.
Durlach, P. J., &Rescorla, R. A. (1980). Potentiation rather than overshadowing in flavor-aversion learning: An analysis in terms of within-compound associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,6, 175–187.
Dwyer, D. M. (1999). Retrospective revaluation or mediated conditioning? The effect of different reinforcers.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52B, 289–306.
Dwyer, D. M. (2001). Mediated conditioning and retrospective revaluation with LiCl then flavour pairings.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54B, 145–165.
Gewirtz, J. C., &Davis, M. (2000). Using Pavlovian higher-order conditioning paradigms to investigate the neural substrates of emotional learning and memory.Learning & Memory,7, 257–266.
Holland, P. C. (1981). Acquisition of representation-mediated conditioned food aversions.Learning & Motivation,12, 1–18.
Holland, P. C., &Forbes, D. T. (1982). Representation-mediated extinction of conditioned flavor aversions.Learning & Motivation,13, 454–471.
Kamin, L. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–31). Miami: University of Miami Press.
Kraemer, P. J., Lariviere, N. A., &Spear, N. E. (1988). Expression of a taste aversion conditioned with an odor—taste compound: Overshadowing is relatively weak in weanlings and decreases over a retention interval in adults.Animal Learning & Behavior,16, 164–168.
Lashley, K. S., &Wade, M. (1946). The Pavlovian theory of generalization.Psychological Review,53, 72–87.
Lubow, R. E., &Moore, A. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditioned stimulus.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,52, 415–419.
Lysle, D. T., &Fowler, H. (1985). Inhibition as a “slave” process: Deactivation of conditioned inhibition through extinction of conditioned excitation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,11, 71–94.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). An analysis of overshadowing and blocking.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,23, 118–125.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1976). Overshadowing and stimulus intensity.Animal Learning & Behavior,4, 186–192.
Mazur, J. E., &Wagner, A. R. (1982). An episodic model of associative learning. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Hernnstein, & A. R. Wagner (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: Acquisition (Vol. 3, pp. 3–39). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Miller, R. R., &Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927).Conditioned reflexes. London: Clarendon Press.
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review,94, 61–73.
Pearce, J. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model.Psychological Review,101, 587–607.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
Pineño, O., Urushihara, K., &Miller, R. R. (2005). Spontaneous recovery from forward and backward blocking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,31, 172–183.
Rescorla, R. A. (1980).Pavlovian second-order conditioning: Studies in associative learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rescorla, R. A., &Durlach, P. J. (1981). Within-event learning in Pavlovian conditioning. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 81–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Revusky, S. (1971). The role of interference in association over a delay. In W. K. Honig & P. H. R. James (Eds.),Animal memory. New York: Academic Press.
Riccio, D. C., Ackil, J., &Burch-Vernon, A. (1992). Forgetting of stimulus attributes: Methodological implications for assessing associative phenomena.Psychological Bulletin,112, 433–445.
Riccio, D. C., Rabinowitz, V. C., &Axelrod, S. (1994). Memory: When less is more.American Psychologist,49, 917–926.
Riccio, D. C., Richardson, R., &Ebner, D. L. (1984). Memory retrieval deficits based upon altered contextual cues: A paradox.Psychological Bulletin,96, 152–165.
Rizley, R. C., &Rescorla, R. A. (1972). Associations in second-order conditioning and sensory preconditioning.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,81, 1–11.
Rusiniak, K., Hankins, W., Garcia, J., &Brett, L. (1979). Flavor— illness aversions: Potentiation of odor by taste in rats.Behavioral & Neural Biology,25, 1–17.
Stout, S. [C.], Arcediano, F., Escobar, M., &Miller, R. R. (2003). Overshadowing as a function of trial number: Dynamics of first- and second-order comparator effects.Learning & Behavior,31, 85–97.
Stout, S. [C.], Escobar, M., &Miller, R. R. (2004). Trial number and compound stimuli temporal relationship as joint determinants of second-order conditioning and conditioned inhibition.Learning & Behavior,32, 230–239.
Stout, S. C., &Miller, R. R. (2007). Sometimes competing retrieval (SOCR): A formalization of the comparator hypothesis.Psychological Review,114, 759–783.
Van Hamme, L. J., &Wasserman, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements.Learning & Motivation,25, 127–151.
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yin, H., Barnet, R. C., &Miller, R. R. (1994). Second-order conditioning and Pavlovian conditioned inhibition: Operational similarities and differences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,20, 419–428.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article was possible thanks to economical support from the Department of Universities, Research, and Technology of the Andalusían Government (Junta de Andalucía).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pineño, O. A response rule for positive and negative stimulus interaction in associative learning and performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 1115–1124 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193100
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193100