Abstract
Autoshaping, defined as the development of the stimulus-directed action through positive stimulus-reinforcer contingency, has several novel features which have necessitated a serious reconsideration of certain principles of both classical and operant conditioning. These features include: (1) The stimulus-reinforcer relation plays a major role in both acquisition and maintenance of the autoshaped response. (2) The autoshaped response is directed toward the signal of reinforcer delivery. (3) The autoshaped response is similar in form to the response elicited by the reinforcer. It was shown that these features are difficult to explain on the basis of operant reinforcement alone. Although all of these features can be considered within a framework of the classical conditioning of skeletal actions, the Pavlovian notion of stimulus substitution is not applicable to certain autoshaped responses. Two recent hypotheses were discussed which extend the stimulus substitution principle and further emphasize the phylogenetic origins of autoshaped responses. In conclusion, autoshaping research has not only challenged the operant reinforcement principle as a general account of all instrumental learning but also expanded the scope and applicability of classical conditioning to various signal-directed skeletal actions.
