CHAPTER 12

1. CHAPTER 12 Interactions between Pavlovian and Operant Conditioning

2. DISTINGUISHING PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING • Pavlovian conditioning involves relations between stimuli: CSs and USs. • Operant conditioning involves relations between responses and stimuli: operants and reinforcers. • These two types of conditioning are theoretically distinct and separable.

3. DISTINGUISHING PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING • In practice, however, it is another matter. • Both types of contingencies contribute to learned behavior in any conditioning situation: • Stimulus-Response-Reinforcer (Nominal) • Stimulus-Response-Reinforcer (Pavlovian) • Stimulus-Response-Reinforcer (Operant)

4. DISTINGUISHING PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING • Issue is not whether Pavlovian and operant contingencies interact, but how they do so. • We must know how Pavlovian and operant contingencies interact with one another to provide a satisfactory account of behavior.

5. DISTINGUISHING PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING • If two distinct behaviors interact, then how can we effectively distinguish Pavlovian from operant responses? • One answer is: • Pavlovian responses are autonomic, reflexive behaviors. • Operant responses are skeletal, voluntary behaviors.

6. DISTINGUISHING PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING • Evaluation: • Pavlovian responses are autonomic, reflexive behaviors. • If skeletal responses can be conditioned with Pavlov’s procedure, then this claim is not true. • Autoshaping is most famous counter-example.

7. DISTINGUISHING PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING • Evaluation: • Operant responses are skeletal, voluntary behaviors. • If autonomic behaviors can be operantly conditioned, then this claim is not true. • Instrumental autonomic conditioning is most infamous counter-example.

8. PAVLOVIAN CONTINGENCIES AND OPERANT BEHAVIOR • One familiar strategy to investigate operant-Pavlovian interactions is to superimpose Pavlovian CSs on operant baseline behavior. • CER is most famous example. • But, a fear-evoking CS not only suppresses appetitive operant behavior, it enhances aversive operant behavior.

9. PAVLOVIAN CONTINGENCIES AND OPERANT BEHAVIOR • Results suggest that central motivational or emotional states are controlled by Pavlovian contingencies • These Pavlovian motivational or emotional CRs centrally modulate operant behavior.

10. PAVLOVIAN CONTINGENCIES AND OPERANT BEHAVIOR • Hypotheses: • Pavlovian CS will increase ongoing operant behavior when both contingencies involve appetitive or aversive stimuli. • On the other hand, Pavlovian CS will decrease ongoing operant behavior when one contingency is aversive and other is appetitive.

11. PAVLOVIAN CONTINGENCIES AND OPERANT BEHAVIOR • Evaluation: • Beyond CER, evidence does not generally support this motivational interpretation. • Specific CRs and operants are important in determining operant-Pavlovian interactions.

12. PAVLOVIAN CONTINGENCIES AND OPERANT BEHAVIOR • Example: • Key light is paired with food. • Key light is superimposed on operant behavior that produces food. • If operant is pecking same key, then rate is increased. • If operant is pecking different key or stepping on treadle, then rate is decreased.

13. PAVLOVIAN CONTINGENCIES AND OPERANT BEHAVIOR • Results directly implicate specific Pavlovian and operant behaviors. • Motivation alone cannot explain results.

14. PAVLOVIAN CONDITIONED STATES AS INFORMATION • Interactions between Pavlovian and operant contingencies are often held to be between central motivational or emotional states. • Another view emphasizes Pavlovian conditioning of expectation: CS leads animal to expect US. • Of course, both notions could be true.

15. PAVLOVIAN CONDITIONED STATES AS INFORMATION • Growing evidence suggests: • Pavlovian conditioning forges highly specific expectations or associations. • Such expectations or associations can directly affect operant discrimination learning. • Key phenomenon here is differential outcomes effect.

16. Differential Outcomes Effect • Basic design for two groups of rats: • Two levers: left and right • Light and tone discriminative stimuli • Food and sugar water reinforcers • Lightpress 1reinforcer • Tonepress 2reinforcer

17. Differential Outcomes Effect • Group Nondifferential: • Lightpress 1food/sugar water • Tonepress 2food/sugar water • Group Differential: • Lightpress 1food • Tonepress 2sugar water • Result: Group Differential learns faster than Group Nondifferential.

18. Differential Outcomes Effect • Two sources of information in Group Differential, but only one source of information in Group Nondifferential: • Group Nondifferential: • Light [???]press 1food/sugar water • Tone [???]press 2food/sugar water • Group Differential: • Light [food]press 1food • Tone[sugar water]press 2sugar water

19. PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING: ONE UNDERLYING PROCESS? • Most theorists have treated Pavlovian and operant conditioning as separate, distinguishable processes that co-occur in most learning situations. • But, perhaps only one process is actually involved. • We might call it causality detection.

20. PAVLOVIAN AND OPERANT CONDITIONING: ONE UNDERLYING PROCESS? • In both kinds of conditioning, organisms may be learning about determinants or causes of important events. • In Pavlovian conditioning, causes are environmental events. • In operant conditioning, causes are organism’s own actions. • In each case, causal inferences may be governed by same rules.

21. Competition Between Operant Responses and Pavlovian CSs • One way to see if a single process is involved is to see if blocking crosses operant and Pavlovian contingencies. • CSs can block learning about operant responses and operant responses can block learning about CSs. • These results are consistent with a single-process account.

22. Occasion Setting in Pavlovian and Operant Conditioning • A further commonality is that both Pavlovian and operant conditioning involve hierarchical associations. • One familiar case is occasion setting. • Rather than simply signal presence or absence of US, occasion setters signal whether association between other events is or is not active.

23. Occasion Setting in Pavlovian and Operant Conditioning • Example: • CAfood • Ano food • DBfood • Bno food • A prompts a CR after C, but not alone; C doesn’t prompt a CR. • B prompts a CR after D, but not alone; D doesn’t prompt a CR.

24. Occasion Setting in Pavlovian and Operant Conditioning • Same pattern of responding to A and B holds in this case too: • CAfood • Ano food • DBfood • Bno food • Cfood • Dno food

25. Occasion Setting in Pavlovian and Operant Conditioning • So, powers of positive occasion setter are independent of its own direct association with US. • Similar results have been obtained with negative occasion setters. • CAno food • Afood • Similar results have been obtained in operant occasion setting studies too.

26. Summary • Operant and Pavlovian conditioning contingencies can be isolated in any conditioning experiment. • Both participate in learned behavior. • But, it is not certain whether one or two processes are actually at work.