Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T12:24:33.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - A Behavior Systems Framework

What It Is and How to Use It

from Part I - Evolution of Learning Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

By
Kathleen M. Silva  and
Francisco J. Silva
Edited by
Mark A. Krause ,
Karen L. Hollis  and
Mauricio R. Papini
Mark A. Krause
Affiliation:
Southern Oregon University
Karen L. Hollis
Affiliation:
Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts
Mauricio R. Papini
Affiliation:
Texas Christian University
Get access

Summary

It is likely that comparative psychologists, animal learning researchers, and behavior analysts agree with the general tenets of a behavior systems framework — that behavior is organized, that learning depends on a set of starting conditions that consist of the past and present state of an animal (including its evolutionary history), and that learning is influenced by the physical characteristics of the environments in which it is studied. Despite this agreement, a behavior systems framework is typically used to explain anomalous results rather than serve as the theoretical foundation for testing the generality of constructs and phenomena in the study of animal learning. In this chapter, we illustrate how a behavior systems framework, with its emphasis on situating animal learning and behavior in a functional context and measuring multiple responses, can be used in pursuit of that goal.

Keywords

behavior systemsanomaliesgeneralizabilitymeasurement of behaviorbehavioral sequencesdivergence of responses.
Type
Chapter
Information
Evolution of Learning and Memory Mechanisms , pp. 210 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnett, S. A. (1975). The rat: A study in behavior. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beach, F. A. (1950). The Snark was a boojum. American Psychologist, 5, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beecher, M. D. (1988). An adaptationist approach to learning. In Bolles, R. C. & Beecher, M. D. (Eds.), Evolution and learning (pp. 239–248). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bitterman, M. E. (1976). Flavor aversion studies. Science, 192, 266–267. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257768Google Scholar
Blanchard, P., Lauzeral, C., Chamaillé-Jammes, S., Brunet, C., Lec’hvien, A., Péron, G., & Pontier, D. (2018). Coping with change in predation risk across space and time through complementary behavioral responses. BMC Ecology, 18(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-018-0215-7Google Scholar
Boughner, R. L., & Papini, M. R. (2003). Appetitive latent inhibition in rats: Now you see it (sign tracking), now you don’t (goal tracking). Learning & Behavior, 31, 387–392. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195999Google Scholar
Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist, 16, 681–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Davey, G. (1989). Ecological learning theory. Routledge.Google Scholar
Davidson, T. L., & Riley, A. L. (2015). Taste, sickness, and learning: Understanding how we form aversions to particular flavors has led to new ideas about learning – and could have implications for treating obesity and drug use. American Scientist, 103(3). www.americanscientist.org/article/taste-sickness-and-learningGoogle Scholar
Domjan, M. (2000). General process learning theory: Challenges from response and stimulus factors. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 13, 101–118. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0b69j9v1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domjan, M. (2005). Pavlovian conditioning: A functional perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 179–206. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141409CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domjan, M. (2015). The Garcia–Koelling selective association effect: A historical and personal perspective. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 28, 25645. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sx993rmGoogle Scholar
Eldridge, G. D., & Pear, J. J. (1987). Topographical variations in behavior during autoshaping, automaintenance, and omission training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1987.47-319Google Scholar
Ewell, A. H., Jr., Cullen, J. M., & Woodruff, M. L. (1981). Tonic immobility as a predator-defense in the rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Behavioral Neural Biology, 31, 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-1047(81)91585-5Google Scholar
Ewer, R. F. (1971). The biology and behavior of a free-living population of black rats (Rattus rattus). Animal Behavior Monographs, 4(3), 127–174.Google Scholar
Fanselow, M. S., Hoffman, A. N., & Zhuravka, I. (2019). Timing and the transition between modes in the defensive behavior system. Behavioural Processes, 166, 103890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103890Google Scholar
Fantino, E. (1965). Some data on the discriminative stimulus hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement. The Psychological Record, 15, 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortes, I., Machado, A., & Vasconcelos, M. (2017). Do pigeons (Columba livia) use information about the absence of food appropriately? A further look into suboptimal choice. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 131, 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000079CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, J. (1981). Tilting at the paper mills of academe. American Psychologist, 36, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.149Google Scholar
Garcia, J., & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in aversion learning. Psychonomic Science, 4, 123–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03342209Google Scholar
Gustavson, C. R., Kelly, D. J., Sweeney, M., & Garcia, J. (1976). Prey-lithium aversions: I. Coyotes and wolves. Behavioral Biology, 17, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-6773(76)90272-8Google Scholar
Hearst, E., & Franklin, S. R. (1977). Positive and negative relations between a signal and food: Approach-withdrawal behavior to the signal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.3.1.37Google Scholar
Hilliard, S., Domjan, M., Nguyen, M., & Cusato, B. (1998). Dissociation of conditioned appetitive and consummatory sexual behavior: Satiation and extinction tests. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199159Google Scholar
Holland, P. C., & Ross, R. T. (1981). Within-compound associations in serial compound conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 7, 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.7.3.228Google Scholar
Holland, P. C., & Sherwood, A. (2008). Formation of excitatory and inhibitory associations between absent events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.34.3.324Google Scholar
Holland, P. C., & Straub, J. J. (1979). Differential effects of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after Pavlovian appetitive conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.5.1.65Google Scholar
Hollis, K. L. (1984). The biological function of Pavlovian conditioning: The best defense is a good offense. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.10.4.413Google Scholar
Hollis, K. L. (1997). Contemporary research on Pavlovian conditioning: A “new” functional analysis. American Psychologist, 52, 956–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.9.956CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollis, K. L., Pharr, V. L., Dumas, M. J., Britton, G. B., & Field, J. (1997). Classical conditioning provides paternity advantage for territorial male blue gouramis (Trichogaster trichopterus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 111, 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.111.3.219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman, R. A., Honey, R. C., Eccles, G. L., & Pearce, J. M. (2016). Asymmetry in the discrimination of quantity by rats: The role of the intertrial interval. Learning & Behavior, 44, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-015-0191-0Google Scholar
Innis, N. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1989). What should comparative psychology compare? International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2, 145–156.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. J., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1980). Strategies and tactics of human behavioral research. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In Campbell, B. A. & Church, R. M. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 276–296). Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Killeen, P. R. (2018). The futures of experimental analysis of behavior. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 18, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000100Google Scholar
Killeen, P. R. (2019). Timberlake’s theories dissolve anomalies. Behavioural Processes, 166, 103894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103894Google Scholar
Konorski, J. (1967). Integrative activity of the brain. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krause, M. A., & Domjan, M. (2017). Ethological and evolutionary perspectives on Pavlovian conditioning. In Call, J. (Ed.), Handbook of comparative psychology: Vol 2: Perception, learning and cognition (pp. 247–266). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
LoLordo, V. W. (1979). Constraints on learning. In Bitterman, M. E., LoLordo, V. M., Overmier, J. B., & Rashotte, M. E. (Eds.), Animal learning. Survey and analysis (pp. 473–504). Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3387-6_15Google Scholar
Lucas, G. A. (2019). Adaptive systems influence both learning and conscious attention. Behavioural Processes, 168, 103871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.05.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076778Google Scholar
McNish, K. A., Betts, S. L., Brandon, S. E., & Wagner, A. R. (1997). Divergence of conditioned eyeblink and conditioned fear in backward Pavlovian training. Animal Learning & Behavior, 25, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199023Google Scholar
Miller, R. R., & Matzel, L.D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 51–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60038-9Google Scholar
Overmier, J. B., & Meyers-Manor, J. (2015). Alerts for assessing “biological constraints” on learning. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 28, 1–12. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8tk8h8c4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papini, M. R. (2002). Pattern and process in the evolution of learning. Psychological Review, 109, 186–220. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.1.186Google Scholar
Papini, M. R. (2008). Comparative psychology: Evolution and development of behavior (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Revusky, S. (1977). Learning as a general process with an emphasis on data from feeding experiments. In Milgram, N. W., Krames, L., & Alloway, T. M. (Eds.), Food aversion learning (pp. 1–71). Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P. (1970). On the generality of the laws of learning. Psychological Review, 77, 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029790Google Scholar
Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Silva, F. J., Silva, K. M., & Pear, J. J. (1992). Sign- versus goal-tracking: Effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1992.57-17Google Scholar
Silva, F. J., & Timberlake, W. (2000). A clarification of the nature of backward excitatory conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 31, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1006/lmot.1999.1042Google Scholar
Silva, K. M., & Timberlake, W. (2005). A behavior systems view of the organization of multiple responses during a partially or continuously reinforced interfood clock. Animal Learning & Behavior, 33, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swartzentruber, D. (1995). Modulatory mechanisms in Pavlovian conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 23, 123–143. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199928Google Scholar
Tait, R. W., & Saladin, M. E. (1986). Concurrent development of excitatory and inhibitory associations during backward conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 14, 133–137. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrailkill, E. A., & Bouton, M. E. (2016). Extinction of chained instrumental behaviors: Effects of consumption extinction on procurement responding. Learning & Behavior, 44, 85–96. https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13420-015-0193-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timberlake, W. (1990). Natural learning in laboratory paradigms. In Dewsbury, D. A. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in comparative psychology (pp. 31–54). Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Timberlake, W. (1994). Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 405–420. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210945Google Scholar
Timberlake, W. (2001). Integrating niche-related and general process approaches in the study of learning. Behavioural Processes, 54, 79–94. http://10.1016/S0376-6357(01)00151-6Google Scholar
Timberlake, W. (2004). Trends in the study of Pavlovian conditioning. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17, 119–130.Google Scholar
Timberlake, W., & Grant, D. L. (1975). Auto-shaping in rats to the presentation of another rat predicting food. Science, 190, 690–692. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4215.690Google Scholar
Timberlake, W., & Lucas, G. A. (1989). Behavior systems and learning: From misbehavior to general principles. In Klein, S. B. & Mowrer, R. R. (Eds.), Contemporary learning theories: Instrumental conditioning theory and the impact of biological constraints on learning (pp. 237–275). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Timberlake, W., & Silva, F. J. (1994). Observation of behavior, inference of function, and the study of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200762Google Scholar
Timberlake, W., Wahl, G., & King, D. (1982). Stimulus and response contingencies in the misbehavior of rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 8, 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0097-7403.8.4.328Google Scholar
Tinsley, M. R., Timberlake, W., Sitomer, M., & Widman, D. R. (2002). Conditioned inhibitory effects of discriminated Pavlovian training with food in rats depend on interactions of search modes, related repertoires, and response measures. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192831Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In Spear, N. E. & Miller, R. R. (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R., & Brandon, S. E. (1989). Evolution of a structured connectionist model of Pavlovian conditioning (AESOP). In Klein, S. B. & Mowrer, R. R. (Eds.), Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 149–189). Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×