Is the avoiding of operant theory a Pavlovian conditioned response

The proposed hea\'y dependence on Pado\ian conditioning to aCTOlnlt for social beh'l\ior confounds ph:'logenicall:' and ontogenicall:' seI"c'ted beh'l\ior pattems and ignores the extension of the principle of seI"ction b:' consequences from biological to leaming theor\', Insteau of acknowledging operant relations, Domian et al. construct \'agnely specified nwt'itanisms based upon anticipatoT\' cost-benefit considerations that are not snpported 1)\' the Pado\ian conditioning literature, \Ian\' of tJw things that animals do produce emironmental effects. inclnding effects on the beha\ior of other organisms. \\ith subsequent actions similar in kind becoming more or less likely, This results in a three-tenn specification of the action antecedent or discriminati\'e stimulus, topographically or functionally defined rt'sponse. and consequence and cannot be captured b:' a t\\'oterm Pado\ian relation, Recognizing this. Domian et ai, introduce "me1110T\'"and "feed-foT\\'aref' processes. greatI:' complicating an account under the guise of interdisciplinaT\' inclusi\'eness, apparentJ:' in order to maintain a strictI:' Pa\'lo\ian perspecti\'e, Thrt'e-term relations ha\'e been addressed much more directhas operant beha\ior, generated and maintained through a t:Ve of sPlc>ction h:' consequences. Operant relations han' been efficientJ:' s\'stematized and studied. \\ith the resulting inte'1)reth'e s\'stem \'alidated both through its intemal coherence (Catania fyy,'i: Skinner 195:3. see also 71 \'olumes of the jOl/ma! (If the Exliel'il/wllta! Alla!ysis (If Bchm:iol') and through applications in the domain of human and nonhuman. as well as social and nonsocial heha\ior (Andronis et aI. 1997: Daniels 1994: Epstein et ai, 1980: Guerin 1994: fohnson &. La\11g 1992: Kulik et ai, 1979J. Besides ignoring the extensi~'e conceptual and empirical literature on operant selection per se, Domjan et aI. o\'erlook contemporar:' relationships between psychology and biology not onl:' in heha\ioralneuroscience but also in decades of fmitful exchange bet\\'een behmior anah-sts and evolutionaT\' biologists, The latter ha\'e bet'n documented e\'en in this jou'rnal (e',g" f,mtino &. ,-\barca 198.5), ;\-loreo\·er. by sharing \\ith biology common (selectionist) interpreti\'e principles rather than by appealing exclusivel:' to reductionistic mediational mechanisms (e.gooSmith 1986), one can effec:ti\'e!y consider beha\iorallps:'chological processes as extt'nded in time. at multiple time scales (Glenn 1991L Pado\ian processes are best understood \\ithin this selectionist system, as phdo~enicalhselected pattems ofbeha\ioral control b:' emiron1IIentai stimuli. \\ithout conceding the pri\ileged status that the target article grants to "proximate" (implicitl:' if not explicitl:' molecularl causath'e interpretations, Surt'h-. Pado\ian relations occur within social beha\ior. vet the anthors'ne\'er prmide an ex-plicit definition of "social beha\ior" and lilah0111:' \'ague reference to "groups:' The target article impli(-s that complex human social beha\ior is \\ithin Domian et aI:s pUT\'je\\', although illustrative examples art' dnn\11 maink from exj1l'rinwnts on species-specific. stere0t:ved, and rigid hehmior patterns, IgnOling this and acct'pting the authors' "proximate 1'0c'us," their intt'l-pretations are still f1a\\,t'd, For exam pit', \\'hen the allthors ref('r to "shaping t'ffecti\'C>social IwIHniors" \\ithin the conkxt of tllt'ir modellsect, .'5. para, .'5). tht'y !JorrO\\' tt'nninolo~' tllat \\'as coint'd in dealing \\ith selection of opt'rant lwha\ior \ia \'l'sponst'-rl'ilt!()rct'r contingencies: these are not co\'ered h:' tlw relations that define Pado\ian conditioning. Pavlmian conditioning poeticall~' characterized in the article 'as gel1f:'rating "tht' glue tklt holds expt'rience together" (sect. 1. para. 4) encompasses onk stimulus-stimulus relations, A conditioned stimulus, through its c:ontingent rt'lation \\ith the unconditioned stimulus. mod'u:2.'5:2 BEHAVIORAL AND BRA.IN SCIENCES (20001 232 lates the occurrence of already existing response patterns (Rescorla 1988), In contrast. a "discriminated operant involves a response selected by the experimenter through shaping" (jenkins 1973. pp, 189-90) a response that would not result from mere temporal pairing of the discriminative stimulus \\'ith the reinforcer, "The [Pado\ian] conditioned response is a natural consequence of the stimulus-reinforcer pairing and is in that sense [ontogenically] lmsclccted" (jenh.ins 1973, p. 190. original emphasis). Throughout the target article. the authors seem unconcemed about distinguishing bet\\'een Pado\ian. operant. and other beha\ioral processes. \\'hereas a significant body of research has shO\\11 that operant and Pado\ian relations are not reducible to one another and may onl:' be dissociated hy arranging ex-plicit experimental procedures (e,gooBro\\11 et al, 191)2:.\'1arcucella 1981), Jenkins (1977) sho\\'ed that e\'en the pigeon's ke:' peck, which in its autoshaped fonn is considered a proto!\Vical PadO\ian conelitioned response. could not be reduced to either stimulus-reinforcer (5-S*) or response-reinforcer lR-S*1 relations, He concluded that "the three-tenned relation [S(R-S*)] identified bv Skinner is alive and well and is not reducible to a pair of correhitions" (p, 60L Gonnezano and Kehoe (197,'5) further pointed out that mam' classical conditioning preparations \iolated Padov's stricture of administering the US independent of the subject's behmior, In those cases. selection b:' consequences im'ariabl:' operates upon the behmior "necessar:' for the receipt of the US" (p. 1,'51L These considerations make untenable many instances of the authors' interpretation. \\'hich indiscriminately apphprinciples of Pa\'lo\ian conditioning to situations most likehim'ohing operant, three-term relations, Domjan et al. attempt to compensatt' for this limited s\\'a:' of Pa\'!o\ian relations by appealing to an implicit rationalit:' of unspecified decision processes operating upon the metaphor of memor:' storage \ia "feed-foT\\'ard processes," They assert that this assemblage of processes pre\'ents "bel1<nioralmistakes" b\' anticipating "imminent beha\ioral output" and moelif-ing it according to a precalculated cost-benefit ratio, Their account relies on the predictive utilit:' of Pado\ian relations challenged b:' findings such as those of Brad\' et aI. (1969). in \\'hich two simultaneous. con\'entional measures of Pado\ian conrutioning (conditioned suppression of le\'er pressing and blood pressurechanges) rendered independent patterns of conrutioning and subsequent extinction: each was sometimes present \\ithout the other. .\loreo\'er, Hearst and Jenkins's (1974) "long box" ex-periment sho\\'ed that Pavlo\ian responrung persisted e\'en \\'hen it pre\'ented consumption of the US: their subjects pursued the "sign" although this resulted in ob\ious1v lo\\'er "cost-benefit" ratios (see also omission sturues. e.g,. Williams &. Williams 1969), Domjan et al:s interpretation \\'ould further preruct a correlation between conditioned response magnitude and the intensit:' of an unconditioned stimulus. a relation that could not be ShO\\ll (Fured\' 1970: Fured\' &. Doob 1971: cited in Gonnezano &. Kehoe 197.'5)'.In sum, man~' of the beha\iors for \\'hich the authors in\'oke these implicitl:' n{tional decision processes and "feed·foT\\'ard theories:' said to operate upon loosely specified memOT\' processes. \\ill be predictable ontv post hex:, if at all. The heha\ior of concern h,Lsbeen addressed far more direct1v as beh,nior sensith'e to its const'quences. as operant beha\ior. ,-\ final obseT\'ation occasions the title of our commentaT\', Discussing play beha\ior. Domjan et ai, allude to operant reiliforcement relations as pro\iding a basis for Padmian conditionin~. whereb\' a pla\' partner. b:' \irtut' of accompan:ing reinforcement. "for our purposes, can be considt'red an unconditiont'd stimulus" (sect, 4A. para, ,j), Remarkabh-. this statement idt'ntifies 0lwrant relations as tIlt' bases for unconditional stimulus propertit's. thus su~gesting Pado\ian relations depend upon operant ones, If so, it is e\'en less clear wh\' the operant relations \\'ere not invokecl directI:' to account for social bel1<l\ior selected 11:' its consequences. Furthen1lOre. ta"in~ the statement at face \'alue and extrapolating. it \\'ould appear that. to a Padmian tht'orist. operant relations function as aversive e\'ents feeding fOT\\'ard into tht' a\'oidauce of acknowledging selection b:; cOllSequences as fundamental behavior.J process, Adaptiveness, law-of-effect theory, and control-system theory