Pellón Ricardo, Killeen Peter R
Departamento de Psicología Básica I, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED).
Arizona State University.
J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2015 Oct;41(4):444-51. doi: 10.1037/xan0000067.
Boakes, Patterson, Kendig, and Harris (2015) showed that schedule-induced drinking (SID), typically concentrated in the first half of the interpellet interval, is not moved there exclusively by competition from magazine entries, and that not all arbitrary responses can be maintained by adventitious reinforcement. They attribute such inferences to Killeen and Pellón (2013) and Patterson and Boakes (2012), and on that basis reject their explanation for the excessive nature of many adjunctive responses as a result of reinforcement. It is a mistaken attribution, as Killeen and Pellón emphasized that reinforcers act on many competing interim and terminal responses. That attribution is a minor oversight on the authors' part; their return to a discredited motivational account is, however, a major blunder. It discards the seminal recent advances in understanding the nature of schedule-induced responses (e.g., those of Patterson and Boakes), and even the positive contributions of their own article: Their data show very strong correlations between magazine entries and drinking, providing much more evidence for response competition than their microanalysis provides against it.
博克斯、帕特森、肯迪格和哈里斯（2015年）指出，定时诱导饮水（SID）通常集中在两次颗粒投放间隔的前半段，并非仅仅是由食丸槽入口竞争导致其出现在该时段，而且并非所有随意反应都能通过偶然强化得以维持。他们将此类推断归因于基林和佩隆（2013年）以及帕特森和博克斯（2012年），并在此基础上否定了他们对于许多辅助反应过度现象源于强化的解释。这是一种错误的归因，因为基林和佩隆强调强化物作用于许多相互竞争的中间反应和最终反应。这种归因在作者方面是一个小疏忽；然而，他们回归到一个已遭质疑的动机性解释则是一个重大失误。这摒弃了近期在理解定时诱导反应本质方面的开创性进展（例如帕特森和博克斯的研究成果），甚至也摒弃了他们自己文章的积极贡献：他们的数据显示食丸槽入口与饮水之间存在很强的相关性，为反应竞争提供了比他们的微观分析所反对的更多的证据。
