Prediction and control of operant behavior: What you see is not all there is.

Mark E Bouton, Bernard W Balleine
Author Information
  1. Mark E Bouton: Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, USA.
  2. Bernard W Balleine: Decision Neuroscience Laboratory, School of Psychology, University of NSW, Australia.

Abstract

Prediction and control of operant behavior are major goals of behavior analysis. We suggest that achieving these goals can benefit from doing more than identifying the three-term contingency between the behavior, its setting stimulus, and its consequences. Basic research now underscores the idea that prediction and control require consideration of the behavior's . As one example, if an operant is a goal-directed action, it is controlled by the current value of the reinforcer, as illustrated by the so-called reinforcer devaluation effect. In contrast, if the behavior is a habit, it occurs automatically, without regard to the reinforcer's value, as illustrated by its insensitivity to the reinforcer devaluation effect. History variables that distinguish actions and habits include the extent of their prior practice and their schedule of reinforcement. Other operants can appear to have very low or zero strength. However, if the behavior has reached that level through extinction or punishment, it may precipitously increase in strength by changing the context, allowing time to pass, presenting the reinforcer contingently or noncontingently, or extinguishing an alternative behavior. Behaviors that are not suppressed by extinction or punishment are not affected the same way. When predicting the strength of an operant behavior, what you see is not all there is. The behavior's history counts.

Keywords

References

  1. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2015 Jan;41(1):81-90 [PMID: 25706548]
  2. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2016 Oct;42(4):401-414 [PMID: 27598060]
  3. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2016 Sep;133:61-68 [PMID: 27296700]
  4. Eur J Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(7):1036-51 [PMID: 22487034]
  5. Autism Res. 2016 Dec;9(12):1285-1293 [PMID: 26999793]
  6. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1983;79(1):29-31 [PMID: 6403961]
  7. Nat Neurosci. 2005 Nov;8(11):1481-9 [PMID: 16251991]
  8. Psychol Sci. 2017 Nov;28(11):1640-1648 [PMID: 28957015]
  9. Science. 1970 Jul 17;169(3942):301-3 [PMID: 5450360]
  10. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2016 Jul;42(3):246-58 [PMID: 27379715]
  11. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2013 Jul;39(3):193-207 [PMID: 23627796]
  12. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Jul;168(1-2):229-235 [PMID: 12845420]
  13. J Exp Anal Behav. 2011 Jan;95(1):91-108 [PMID: 21541118]
  14. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008 Feb;137(1):39-51 [PMID: 18248128]
  15. Br J Psychol. 1958 Aug;49(3):202-9 [PMID: 13572792]
  16. Behav Processes. 2017 Aug;141(Pt 1):100-127 [PMID: 27794452]
  17. Addict Biol. 2017 Jan;22(1):172-183 [PMID: 26515740]
  18. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 11;9(4):e94778 [PMID: 24728288]
  19. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2014 Jul;40(3):355-68 [PMID: 25545982]
  20. Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Jan 15;77(2):187-95 [PMID: 25062683]
  21. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2010 Jul;36(3):343-53 [PMID: 20658865]
  22. Learn Behav. 2016 Jun;44(2):137-50 [PMID: 26486932]
  23. Learn Mem. 2016 Mar 15;23(4):141-50 [PMID: 26980781]
  24. Learn Mem. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):485-94 [PMID: 15466298]
  25. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1981 Apr;7(2):175-90 [PMID: 7241053]
  26. Learn Mem. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):501-9 [PMID: 15466300]
  27. J Appl Behav Anal. 2015 Summer;48(2):390-401 [PMID: 25891414]
  28. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2015 Jan;41(1):69-80 [PMID: 25706547]
  29. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Jun;29(11):2225-32 [PMID: 19490086]
  30. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Jan;35(1):48-69 [PMID: 19776734]
  31. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1981;75(2):134-43 [PMID: 6798603]
  32. Biol Psychiatry. 2002 Nov 15;52(10):976-86 [PMID: 12437938]
  33. Behav Neurosci. 2007 Dec;121(6):1280-92 [PMID: 18085881]
  34. Behav Processes. 1989 Jun;19(1-3):167-80 [PMID: 24895910]
  35. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2010 Jul;36(3):334-42 [PMID: 20658864]
  36. Learn Behav. 2014 Sep;42(3):281-8 [PMID: 24961749]
  37. J Appl Behav Anal. 2003 Summer;36(2):147-85 [PMID: 12858983]
  38. Neuropharmacology. 1998 Apr-May;37(4-5):407-19 [PMID: 9704982]
  39. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2013 Jan;39(1):2-13 [PMID: 23316974]
  40. J Appl Behav Anal. 2017 Jul;50(3):675-697 [PMID: 28608584]
  41. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Nov;11(11):760-72 [PMID: 20944662]
  42. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1990 Jan;16(1):40-7 [PMID: 2303793]
  43. Learn Behav. 2011 Mar;39(1):57-67 [PMID: 21279496]
  44. Behav Res Ther. 1988;26(2):137-49 [PMID: 3365204]
  45. Learn Behav. 2016 Jun;44(2):151-61 [PMID: 26400498]
  46. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2013 Apr;1282:12-24 [PMID: 23126270]
  47. Prev Med. 2014 Nov;68:29-36 [PMID: 24937649]
  48. Behav Neurosci. 1990 Feb;104(1):44-55 [PMID: 2317285]
  49. Rev Mex Anal Conducta. 2015 Sep;41(2):187-210 [PMID: 27429503]
  50. Learn Behav. 2007 Feb;35(1):43-52 [PMID: 17557390]
  51. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014 May 26;8:101 [PMID: 24904322]
  52. Learn Motiv. 2011 May 1;42(2):154-164 [PMID: 21479120]

Grants

  1. R01 DA033123/NIDA NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0behavioroperantreinforcercontrolstrengthextinctionpunishmentPredictiongoalscanbehavior'sactionvalueillustrateddevaluationeffecthabitseehistorybehavioralmajoranalysissuggestachievingbenefitidentifyingthree-termcontingencysettingstimulusconsequencesBasicresearchnowunderscoresideapredictionrequireconsiderationoneexamplegoal-directedcontrolledcurrentso-calledcontrastoccursautomaticallywithoutregardreinforcer'sinsensitivityHistoryvariablesdistinguishactionshabitsincludeextentpriorpracticeschedulereinforcementoperantsappearlowzeroHoweverreachedlevelmayprecipitouslyincreasechangingcontextallowingtimepasspresentingcontingentlynoncontingentlyextinguishingalternativeBehaviorssuppressedaffectedwaypredictingcountsbehavior:isinhibition

Similar Articles

Cited By