Concurrent behavior: are the interpretations mutually exclusive?

Lyon (1982) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. He looked at decades of lab data where pigeons or rats did extra stuff during reinforcement schedules.

The paper asked: when you see odd extra behavior, how do you know if it is adjunctive, superstitious, or functionally autonomous? He said one test is never enough.

The review found that the three main labels are not mutually exclusive. The same peck or lever press can fit all three stories.

Only a set of follow-up tests can tell which process is in charge.

Catania et al. (1974) showed that concurrent red/blue keys flatten stimulus-control gradients. Lyon (1982) would say that result needs extra probes to rule out adjunctive drinking or superstitious side-pecks.

Parsons et al. (1981) removed adventitious reinforcement and watched contrast disappear. That multi-step approach is exactly what Lyon (1982) calls for.

Dixon (2014) later built a math model saying contrast comes from adjunctive competition. The model refined the adjunctive option that O listed, showing the 1982 idea is still alive.

Coe et al. (1997) brought in cognitive contingency math. They extended O’s message into new language, proving the debate did not end in 1982.

When a client twirls hair or taps the table during DRL, do not jump to one story. Run a quick second test: change the COD, remove accidental reinforcement, or add a signal. Only then pick your intervention.