Abstract
Two sets of experiments examined how differential outcomes affect conditional stimulus control by the samples in delayed matching-to-sample. Pigeons were initially trained on symbolic delayed matching with reinforcing outcomes that were either differential or nondiffereatial with respect to the samples. In one set of experiments, the outcome manipulation involved different (p = 1.0 vs. 0.2) versus the same (p = 0.6) probabilities of food; in the other, food and no-food outcomes were used. Following initial acquisition and mixed-delay tests, the matching procedure in each study was discontinued while the samples were nondifferentially reinforced with the same probability of food, or with food and no food, respectively. When later retested on delayed matching with those nondifferential outcomes, birds initially trained with different reinforcement probabilities matched at the same levels of accuracy as those trained with the same probability. By contrast, birds initially trained with food versus no-food outcomes showed lower levels of matching accuracy than their nondifferential controls. Subsequent transfer tests showed that matching performances by the differential birds in both studies had been originally cued in part by differential outcome expectancies. Apparently, the expectancies based upon different probabilities of food provided a source of conditional stimulus control that did not compete with the samples. By contrast, the expectation of food versus no food reduced (overshadowed) sample-stimulus control.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brodigan, D. L., &Peterson, G. B. (1976). Two-choice conditional discrimination performance of pigeons as a function of reward, expectancy, prechoice delay, and domesticity.Animal Learning & Behavior,4, 121–124.
Carlson, J. G., &Wielkiewicz, R. M. (1976). Mediators of the effects of magnitude of reinforcement.Learning & Motivation,7, 184–196.
Carter, D. E., &Werner, T. J. (1978). Complex learning and information processing by pigeons: A critical analysis.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,29, 565–601.
Cohen, L. R., Looney, T. A., Brady, J. H., &Aucella, A. F. (1976). Differential sample response schedules in the acquisition of conditional discriminations by pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,26, 301–316.
DeLong, R. E., &Wasserman, E. A. (1981). Effects of differential reinforcement expectancies on successive matching-to-sample performance by pigeons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,7, 394–412.
Edwards, C. A., Jagielo, J. A., Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. (1982). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness in matching to sample by pigeons: Mediation by reinforcer-specific expectancies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,8, 244–259.
Honig, W. K., &Dodd, P. W. D. (1986). Anticipation and intention in working memory. In D. F. Kendrick, M. E. Rilling, & M. R. Denny (Eds.),Theories of animal memory (pp. 77–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Honig, W. K., Matheson, W. R., &Dodd, P. W. D. (1984). Outcome expectancies as mediators for discriminative responding.Canadian Journal of Psychology,38, 196–217.
Lovejoy, E., &Russell, D. G. (1967). Suppression of learning about a hard cue by the presence of an easy cue.Psychonomic Science,8, 365–366.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974).The psychology of animal learning. New York: Academic Press.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1976). Overshadowing and stimulus intensity.Animal Learning & Behavior,4, 186–192.
Miles, C. G., &Jenkins, H. M. (1973). Overshadowing in operant conditioning as a function of discriminability.Learning & Motivation,4, 11–27.
Peterson, G. B. (1984). How expectancies guide behavior. In H. L. Roitblat, T. G. Bever, & H. S. Terrace (Eds.),Animal cognition (pp. 135–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peterson, G. B., &Trapold, M. A. (1980). Effects of altering outcome expectancies on pigeons’ delayed conditional discrimination performance.Learning & Motivation,11, 267–288.
Peterson, G. B., &Trapold, M. A. (1982). Expectancy mediation of concurrent conditional discriminations.American Journal of Psychology,95, 571–580.
Peterson, G. B., Wheeler, R. L., &Armstrong, G. D. (1978). Expectancies as mediators in the differential-reward conditional discrimination performance of pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,6, 279–285.
Peterson, G. B., Wheeler, R. L., &Trapold, M. A. (1980). Enhancement of pigeons’ conditional discrimination performance by expectancies of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.Animal Learning & Behavior,8, 22–30.
Rodger, R. S. (1975). The number of non-zero, post-hoc contrasts from ANOVA and error rate. I.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,28, 71–78.
Santi, A., &Roberts, W. A. (1985). Reinforcement expectancy and trial spacing effects in delayed matching-to-sample by pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,13, 274–284.
Trapold, M. A. (1970). Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events discriminably different?Learning & Motivation,1, 129–140.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1984). Overshadowing in matching-to-sample: Reduction in sample-stimulus control by differential sample behaviors.Animal Learning & Behavior,12, 256–264.
Urcuioli, P. J. (1985). On the role of differential sample behaviors in matching-to-sample.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,4, 502–519.
Urcuioli, P. J., &Honig, W. K. (1980). Control of choice in conditional discriminations by sample-specific behaviors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,6, 251–277.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant 86-06926.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Urcuioli, P.J. Some relationships between outcome expectancies and sample stimuli in pigeons’ delayed matching. Animal Learning & Behavior 18, 302–314 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205290
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205290