CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,023Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.

Pearce, John M., Hall, Geoffrey·1980·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/0033-295x.87.6.532
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several formal models of excitatory classical conditioning are reviewed. It is suggested that a central problem for all of them is the explanation of cases in which learning does not occur in spite of the fact that the conditioned stimulus is a signal for the reinforcer. We propose a new model that deals with this problem by specifying that certain procedures cause a conditioned stimulus (CS) to lose effectiveness; in particular, we argue that a CS will lose associability when its consequences are accurately predicted. In contrast to other current models, the effectiveness of the reinforcer remains constant throughout conditioning. The second part of the article presents a reformulation of the nature of the learning produced by inhibitory-conditioning procedures and a discussion of the way in which such learning can be accommodated within the model outlined for excitatory learning. A recent review of classical conditioning (Dickinson & Mackintosh, 1978) suggests that the underlying associative process is "responsible for organisms learning about the relationships between events, enabling them to build up an associative representation of the causal structure of their environment" (p. 588). According to this view the occurrence of a conditioned response (CR) as a result of the pairing of a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US) is regarded as being merely an index of the formation of some internal representation of the relationship between CS and US. The first task of a theory of classical conditioning becomes that of This work was supported by grants from the United Kingdom Science and Medical Research Councils. We have made free use of many suggestions, especially concerning inhibitory learning, made by A. Dickinson. We thank him and also C. Adams, P. Bailey, S. Channel!, N. Mackintosh, and E. Macphail for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Requests for reprints should be sent to John Pearce,

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.87.6.532

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to the Pearce-Hall model, attention to cues that predict a reinforcer should decline as the reinforcer becomes better predicted during extended conditioning.

    “according to at least one venerable theory of associative learning, the Pearce-Hall model of Pavlovian learning (Pearce & Hall, 1980), attention paid to cues that predict a reinforcer should decline as the reinforcer becomes better and better predicted during extended conditioning.”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Pearce & Hall, 1980

  • The attention explanation is based on Pearce and Hall's (1980) theory of attention and its role in Pavlovian learning.

    “The attention explanation given above is based on a well-known theory of attention and its role in Pavlovian learning (Pearce & Hall, 1980).”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Pearce & Hall, 1980

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G.
Affiliations
University of Wales (GB)
ORCID
Hall, Geoffrey
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1980
Volume
87
Issue
6
Pages
532-552
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/0033-295x.87.6.532
OpenAlex
W2090144013
Cited by
3,023
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 142 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 141 · 2016: 108 · 2015: 95 · 2014: 103 · 2013: 109 · 2012: 102
FWCI
12.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
Pavlovian learning, classical conditioning, excitatory conditioning, inhibitory conditioning, unconditioned stimulus, reinforcer effectiveness, associative learning
MeSH terms
Animals, Association Learning, Conditioning, Classical, Humans, Models, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review