Goal-directed actions are instrumental behaviors whose performance depends on the organism's knowledge of the reinforcing outcome's value. In contrast, habits are instrumental behaviors that are insensitive to the outcome's current value. Although habits in everyday life are typically controlled by stimuli that occasion them, most research has studied habits using free-operant procedures in which no discrete stimuli are present to occasion the response. We therefore studied habit learning when rats were reinforced for lever pressing on a random-interval 30-s schedule in the presence of a discriminative stimulus (S) but not in its absence. In Experiment 1, devaluing the reinforcer with taste aversion conditioning weakened instrumental responding in a 30-s S after 4, 22, and 66 sessions of instrumental training. Even extensive practice thus produced goal-directed action, not habit. Experiments 2 and 3 contrastingly found habit when the duration of S was increased from 30 s to 8 min. Experiment 4 then found habit with the 30-s S when it always contained a reinforcer; goal-directed action was maintained when reinforcers were earned at the same rate but occurred in only 50% of Ss (as in the previous experiments). The results challenge the view that habits are an inevitable consequence of repeated reinforcement (as in the law of effect) and instead suggest that discriminated habits develop when the reinforcer becomes predictable. Under those conditions, organisms may pay less attention to their behavior, much as they pay less attention to signals associated with predicted reinforcers in Pavlovian conditioning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Over the last 50 years, cue competition phenomena have shaped theoretical developments in animal and human learning. However, recent failures to observe competition effects in standard conditioning procedures, as well as the lengthy and ongoing debate surrounding cue competition in the spatial learning literature, have cast doubts on the generality of these phenomena. In the present study, we manipulated temporal contiguity between simultaneously trained predictors and outcomes (Experiments 1–4), and spatial contiguity between landmarks and goals in spatial learning (Supplemental Experiments 1 and 2; Experiment 5). Across different parametric variations, we observed overshadowing when temporal and spatial contiguity were strong, but no overshadowing when contiguity was weak. Thus, across temporal and spatial domains, we observed that contiguity is necessary for competition to occur, and that competition between cues presented simultaneously during learning is absent when these cues were either spatially or temporally discontiguous from the outcome. Consequently, we advance a model in which the contiguity between events is accounted for and which explains these results and reconciles the previously contradictory findings observed in spatial learning.

When multiple cues are associated with the same outcome, organisms tend to select between the cues, with one revealing greater behavioral control at the expense of the others (i.e., cue competition). However, non-human and human studies have not always observed this competition, creating a puzzling scenario in which the interaction between cues can result in competition, no interaction, or facilitation as a function of several learning parameters. In five experiments, we assessed whether temporal contiguity and overshadowing effects are reliably observed in the streamed-trial procedure, and whether there was an interaction between them. We anticipated that weakening temporal contiguity (ranging from 500 to 1,000 ms) should attenuate competition. Using within-subject designs, participants experienced independent series of rapid streams in which they had to learn the relationship between visual cues (presented either alone or with another cue) and an outcome, with the cue-outcome pairings being presented with either a delay or trace relationship. Across experiments, we observed overshadowing (Experiments 1, 2, 4, and 5) and temporal contiguity effects (Experiments 2, 3, and 4). Despite the frequent occurrence of both effects, we did not find that trace conditioning abolished competition between cues. Overall, these results suggest that the extent to which contiguity determines cue interactions depends on multiple variables, some of which we address in the General discussion.