John C. Malone

The “Paradigms” of Learning

A number of prominent writers have suggested that in light of recent anomalous findings we greatly modify or abandon entirely the traditional “paradigms and laws” of learning. The data to which they refer are troublesome only to very simple-minded and literal interpretations of traditional paradigms, such as appear in typical textbook treatments. Current interpretations of the reinforcement paradigm can easily include such “anomalous” data. Once we recognize that reinforcers may never be considered independently of behaviors to be reinforced and conditions under which specific effects are viewed, these and other problems diminish in importance. As a means for advancing our understanding of behavior, the paradigms and laws of learning are better viewed as approximations, rather than as inviolate laws.

Advances in Behaviorism: It's Not What It Used to Be

Behaviorism has changed over the past half century and its modern form is not familiar to many educators and other applied professionals. Put briefly, behaviorism has changed from the molecular and absolutist form of years past, when basic researchers, therapists and educators sought to modify isolated “target behaviors.” Modern behaviorism is relativistic and molar and the articles included in this issue are meant to illustrate this changed emphasis. The first article shows how the matching law has redefined the old “law of effect” and how that affects application. The second shows how relational frames provide a behavioral treatment of cognitive variables that dispels the stereotyped view of “behavior modification.” The third treats molar classes of behaviors as “traits,” and individual behaviors as “states,” applying that distinction to aspects of the relative frequencies of behaviors of children at home and at school. Finally, the last article shows specifically how behavioral methods have been (and are) applied to the behavior of autistic children, in a program that has been extremely successful over the past few years.

Multiple-schedule interactions and discrimination

Pigeons received variable-interval (VI) reinforcement for keypecking during randomized presentations of seven line-orientation stimuli forming a continuum ranging from horizontal (0 deg) to vertical (90 deg). Each line presentation lasted for 30 sec and was preceded and followed by 30-sec time-outs. After responding stabilized, only responding in the two extreme stimuli (0 and 90 deg) was reinforced. As discrimination training proceeded, strong behavioral contrast and dimensional contrast effects appeared. However, only marginal local effects (local contrast and local dimensional effects), exerted by one line-orientation component upon a second, appeared, indicating that behavioral and dimensional contrast may be independent of parallel local effects. An attempt was made to apply Blough’s (1975) quantitative model of operant generalization and discrimination to the present discrimination procedure. However, this model did not predict the generalization gradient shape that was experimentally obtained. This experiment also yielded two serendipitous findings: (1) Positive behavioral contrast appeared in an extinction-related stimulus (time-out) when other stimuli were switched from reinforcement to extinction (hitherto, positive behavioral contrast had been observed only in responding to a reinforcementrelated stimulus when other stimuli were switched from reinforcement to extinction), and (2) final responding was higher in the presence of an extinction stimulus that had always been an extinction stimulus than it was in the presence of other extinction stimuli that had previously been paired with VI reinforcement.

Gradient form and sequential effects during generalization testing in extinction

Four naive pigeons were given six generalization tests in extinction after periods of pretraining in which S+ appeared with food reinforcement and S− appeared in extinction. An analysis of sequential effects among presentations of test stimuli showed that the overall gradient was influenced differently by stimuli at the extremes of the continuum of test stimuli and by S+ and adjacent stimuli. Gradients consisting of responding in each stimulus when it was preceded by an extreme stimulus tended to peak at S+, while gradients produced when each stimulus was preceded by S+ or an adjacent stimulus tended to show a peak shift. This was true whether the overall gradient showed a peak shift or not. Two naive subjects were added and four additional tests were given after pretraining in which unequal frequencies of reinforcement accompanied both S+ and S−. Results of all 10 tests show that sequential effects occur during generalization testing in extinction and that these “local dimensional effects” are unlike local contrast. These stimulus-specific sequential effects may greatly influence overall gradient form.

Did John B. Watson Really “Found” Behaviorism?

Developments culminating in the nineteenth century, along with the predictable collapse of introspective psychology, meant that the rise of behavioral psychology was inevitable. In 1913, John B. Watson was an established scientist with impeccable credentials who acted as a strong and combative promoter of a natural science approach to psychology when just such an advocate was needed. He never claimed to have founded “behavior psychology” and, despite the acclaim and criticism attending his portrayal as the original behaviorist, he was more an exemplar of a movement than a founder. Many influential writers had already characterized psychology, including so-called mental activity, as behavior, offered many applications, and rejected metaphysical dualism. Among others, William Carpenter, Alexander Bain, and (early) Sigmund Freud held views compatible with twentieth-century behaviorism. Thus, though Watson was the first to argue specifically for psychology as a natural science, behaviorism in both theory and practice had clear roots long before 1913. If behaviorism really needs a “founder,” Edward Thorndike might seem more deserving, because of his great influence and promotion of an objective psychology, but he was not a true behaviorist for several important reasons. Watson deserves the fame he has received, since he first made a strong case for a natural science (behaviorist) approach and, importantly, he made people pay attention to it.

Adaptation level effects in discrimination of flicker frequency.

Pigeons accustomed to food reinforcement for responding in the presence of a 25-Hz flickering light were exposed to several sets of flicker-frequency stimuli arranged as increasing and decreasing series. In the first experiment, food was occasionally delivered for key pecks during 30-s periods of 25-Hz flicker appearing at the beginning, midway, and at the end of an ascending and descending series of nine frequencies, ranging from 13 to 37 Hz. These stimuli appeared for 15-s periods with no food available (extinction). Gradients of responding to flicker values in the ascending series differed from those in the descending series, showing displacements in peak responding toward the lower and higher frequency values, respectively. The same effects occurred when the sequence was changed so that a descending series was followed by an ascending series of frequencies. These effects are consonant with an adaptation level (AL) interpretation and were replicated in a second experiment in which durations of the extinction presentations were increased to 30s. In a final condition, only a descending series was presented and displacement of peak responding from 25 Hz to a higher frequency stimulus, 28 Hz, was observed.