An interpretation of autoshaping and related phenomena in terms of stimulus-incentive contingencies alone.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
An attempt is made to explain the emergence and maintenance of instrumental responses, as well as the topography of the responses, wholly in terms of stimulus-incentive (S:IS) contingencies. The behavior displayed in 4 training procedures (autoshaping, omission-training, superstition, shaping) was examined. The emergence, maintenance and topographies of the instrumental responses displayed in all the above training paradigms can be explained by the relative incentive-motivational values of situational stimuli. It is not necessary to invoke any contribution of response-incentive (R:IS) contingencies in order to explain the behavior in these training procedures. Certain features of the observed instrumental responding that are usually attributed to adventitious R:IS contingencies are not controlled by R:IS contingencies, but by S:IS contingencies. The generalizability of these conclusions to instrumental responses displayed in other types of learning paradigms remains to be investigated.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: