Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:57:57.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How adaptive behavior is produced: a perceptual-motivational alternative to response reinforcements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Dalbir Bindra
Dalbir Bindra
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 McGregor Ave, Montreal, PQ Canada H3A 1B1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sway that the response-reinforcement framework (Spencer, Thorndike, Hull, Skinner) has held on the behavioral sciences for nearly a hundred years is finally ending. The strength of this framework lay in providing concepts and methods for studying the effects of hedonic (reinforcing) stimuli on the repetition of specified responses acquired in instrumental training situations of various kinds. Its weakness lay in the invalidity of its central assumptions, stimulus-response association and response-reinforcement, which could not deal with motor-equivalence and flexibility (or “intelligence”) in behavior. To the four decades of incisive criticism on particular theoretical and empirical grounds, a more comprehensive challenge to the response-reinforcement framework is now added by the newer ideas about the nature of cognitive, motivational, and response-production processes that have emerged from the work of ethologists, neuroscientists, and cognitive psychologists. An alternative framework, incorporating the newer ideas, is clearly needed.

The particular framework proposed here is based on the ideas of perceptual learning of stimulus-stimulus correlations and of a motivational (rather than reinforcing) role of hedonic (incentive) stimuli. According to it, an act is produced when its act-assembly is activated by a pexgo (perceptual representation) of a certain eliciting stimulus complex (ES). When certain eliciting stimuli are correlated with incentive stimuli, they acquire motivational properties that serve to strengthen the pexgos generated by those eliciting stimuli and thereby increase the probability of activation of the corresponding act-assemblies. Motivation thus influences response production, not by directly instigating “existing” responses, but by modulating the strength of pexgos of eliciting stimuli for the succession of acts that comprise a response. Therefore, a response is always constructed afresh on the basis of current perceptions; not even a stable and stereotyped response occurs as a mere activation of a preformed motor program. The topography of any response that emerges is determined by the nature of the motivational state and the momentary spatiotemporal distribution of eliciting stimuli of changing motivational valence.

By suggesting that the animal learns the overlapping and nested correlations between the stimulus events that commonly occur in a given situation, and by separating what is learned from the processes of response production, the proposed perceptual-motivational framework seems capable of dealing with the problems of motor equivalence and flexibility in adaptive behavior. Some implications of this approach for further behavioral and brain research on such problems as behavior modification, learning by observation of models, analysis of causality, and search for neural substrates of learning and response production, are outlined.

Keywords

act-assemblybehavior modificationcentral motive stateclassical conditioningcontingency organizationeliciting stimulusincentive motivationinstrumental traininglearningresponse productiontwo-factor theory
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 1978 , pp. 41 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W.Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1937.Google Scholar
Amsel, A.Frustrative nonreward in partial reinforcement and discrimination learning. Psychological Review, 1962, 69:306–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asratyan, E. A.Conditional reflex theory and motivational behavior. Acta Neurobiologia Experimental, 1974, 34:15—31.Google ScholarPubMed
Baerends, G. P. and Kruijt, J. P. Stimulus selection In Hinde, R. A. and Hinde, J. Stephenson- (eds) Constraints on learning: Limitations and predispositions. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Bain, A.The Senses and the Intellect. (3rd ed.) London: Longmans, Green, 1868.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. & Walters, R. H.Social Learning and Personality Development New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1963.Google Scholar
Bindra, D.Components of general activity and the analysis of behavior.Psychological Review, 1961,68:205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuropsychological interpretation of the effects of drive and incentivemotivation on general activity and instrumental behavior. Psychological Review, 1968, 75:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The interrelated mechanisms of reinforcement and motivation, and the nature of their influence on response. In Arnold, W. J., Levine, D. (eds.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1969. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1969 (a).Google Scholar
A unified interpretation of emotion and motivation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1969,159:1071–1083 (b).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A motivational view of learning, performance, and behavior modification. Psychological Review, 1974, 81:199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A theory of intelligent behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.Google Scholar
The cognition-motivation connection: Going beyond attention. Address given at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, B C, June, 1977.Google Scholar
& Palfai, T.Nature of positive and negative incentive-motivational effects on general activity. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1967,63:288–297.Google Scholar
Bolles, R. C.Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review, 1972,79:394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breland, K. & Breland, M.The misbehavior or organisms. American Psychologist, 1961,16:681–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespi, L. P.Quantitative variation of incentive and performance in the white rat. American Journal of Psychology, 1942,55:467–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C.On the origin of species. London, Murray, 1859.Google Scholar
Dodwell, P C., & Bessant, D. E.Learning without swimming in a water maze. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1960, 53:422–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E.Personality and Psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.Google Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I.Love and Hate. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. Reinforcement in human learning In J. Tapp (ed.), Reinforcement and Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1969 Reinforcement in human behavior American Scientist, 1972, 60:723–729.Google Scholar
Falk, J. L.Theoretical Review. The nature and determinants of adjunctive behavior. Physiology and Behavior, 1971, 6:577–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, J. P. The neural basis of aggression in cats. In D C. Glass (ed.), Neurophysiology and Emotion. New York: The Rockefeller University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Gamzu, E., & Williams, D. R.Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response. Science, 1971,171:923–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hearst, E. & Jenkins, H. M.Sign-tracking: The Stimulus-Reinforcer Relation and Directed Action. Austin, Texas: The Psychonomic Society, 1974.Google Scholar
Hilgard, E. R.Theories of learning. (2nd ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A.Animal behaviour New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (eds.). Constraints on learning: Limitations and Predispositions London: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Honzik, C. H.The sensory basis ot maze learning in rats. Comparative Psychology Monographs, 1936,13 (Whole No. 64), 113.Google Scholar
Hull, C. L.Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century, 1943.Google Scholar
A Behavior System; an Introduction to Behavior Theory Concerning the Individual Organism. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1952.Google Scholar
James, W.The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt, 1890.Google Scholar
Kendler, H. H.The influence of simultaneous hunger and thirst drives upon the learning of two opposed spatial responses of the white rat. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1946,36:212–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimble, G. A.Hilgard and Marquis' Conditioning and Learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961. (2nded.)Google Scholar
Kohler, WThe Mentality of Apes New York: Harcourt Brace, 1925. Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright, 1929.Google Scholar
Konorski, J.Conditioned reflexes and neuron organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
Integrative Activity of the Brain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Lajoie, J., & Bindra, D.An interpretation of autoshaping and related phenomena in terms of stimulus-incentive contingencies alone. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1976,30:157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashley, K. S. The problem of serial order in behavior. In Jeffress, L. A. (ed.), Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1951.Google Scholar
& McCarthy, D. A.The survival of the maze habit after cerebral injuries. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1926,6:423–433.Google Scholar
Logan, F. A.Incentive. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
MacKintosh, N. J.The Psychology of Animal Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of reinforcement with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 1975,82:276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N. E. Learning and performance motivated by direct stimulation of the brain. In Sheer, D. E. (ed.), Electrical Stimulation of the Brain. Austin, Texas: University of Austin Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Some reflections on the law of effect produce a new alternative to drive reduction. In Jones, M. R. (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1963. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1963.Google Scholar
& Dollard, J.Social Learning and Imitation. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1941.Google Scholar
Mowrer, O. H.A stimulus-response analysis of anxiety and its role as a reinforcing agent. Psychological Review, 1939,46:553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
On the dual nature of learning - a re-interpretation of “conditioning” and “problem-solving.” Harvard Educational Review, 1947,17:102–148.Google Scholar
Learning Theory and the Symbolic Processes. New York: John Wiley, 1960 (a).Google Scholar
Learning Theory and Behavior. New York: John, Wiley, 1960 (b).Google Scholar
Pfaffmann, C.The pleasures of sensation. Psychological Review, 1960, 67:253–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(ed.) Olfaction and Taste. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Postman, L.The history and present status of the law of effect. Psychological Bulletin, 1947,44:489–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Premack, D. Toward empirical behavior laws. I. Positive reinforcement. Psychological Review, 1959,66:219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L.Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review, 1967,74:151–182.Google Scholar
& Wagner, A R. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variation in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. – Prokasy, W. F. (eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.Google Scholar
Roberts, W., – Kiess, H. O.Motivational properties of hypothalamic aggression in cats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964,58:187–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, M. L., & Means, L. W.Hypothalamic mechanisms for sexual aggressive, and other motivational behaviors in the opossum, Didelphis virginiana. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1967,64:1–15.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P., & Hager, J. L. (eds.). Biological boundaries of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.Google Scholar
Seward, J. P.Drive, incentive, and reinforcement. Psychological Review, 1956,63:195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheffield, F. D. A drive-induction theory of reinforcement. In Haber, R. N. (ed.), Current Research in Motivation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.Google Scholar
Shettleworth, S. J.Reinforcement and the organization of behavior in golden hamsters: Hunger, environment and food reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1975,1:56–87.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F.The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 1935,12:40–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938.Google Scholar
Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 1950, 57:193–216.Google Scholar
Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1953.Google Scholar
Cumulative Record. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1959.Google Scholar
Solomon, R. L., & Turner, L. H.Discriminative classical conditioning in dogs paralyzed by curare can later control discriminative avoidance responses in the normal state. Psychological Review, 1962, 69:202–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, K. W.Behavior Theory and Learning. Selective Papers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, H.The Principles of Psychology. 2 vols. New York: Appleton, D., 1872–73.Google Scholar
Staddon, J. E. R., & Simmelhag, V. L.The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 1971, 78:3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, N. S., & MacKintosh, N. J.Mechanisms of Animal Discrimination Learning. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L.Animal Intelligence. New York: Macmillan, 1911.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N.The Study of Instinct. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C.Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: Century, 1932.Google Scholar
Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 1948,55:189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
There is more than one kind of learning. Psychological Review, 1949, 56:144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, E. L. Reinforcement - “the one ring”. In J. T. Tapp (ed.), Reinforcement and Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Young, P. T.Appetite, palatability and feeding habit: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 1948,45:289–320.Google Scholar