ABSTRACT
Theories of conditioning and timing were developed independently, and they have been used to explain different phenomena. Theories of conditioning are designed to account for differential strengths of responding in the presence of different stimulus configurations. For example, they explain the acquisition of a higher response rate in the presence than in the absence of a light if reinforcement occurs during the light. In contrast, theories of timing are designed to account for differential responding as a function of the time from a stimulus transition. For example, they explain differences in response rate and response choice as a function of time since the onset of a stimulus. The separate goals of theories of conditioning and timing are reflected in two chapters of the previous edition of this book (Klein & Mowrer, 1989): The chapter “Theories of Timing Behavior” (Church, 1989) did not refer to conditioning literature or theory, and the chapter “Perceptual and Associative Learning” (Hall & Honey, 1989) did not refer to timing literature or theory Textbooks on animal cognition and learning (e.g., Roberts, 1998; Schmajuk, 1997) typically describe theories of conditioning and timing in separate chapters with minimal cross-referencing. In an excellent review of recent research on associative learning that was put in historical context, Wasserman and Miller (1997) described various types of theories (contiguity, contingency, rule-based, and associative), but not the timing theories or real-time conditioning theories described in this chapter. In the last decade there has been an increasing convergence of theories of conditioning and timing, and it is no longer clear that separate theories are required (Kirkpatrick & Church, 1998). This chapter describes some of these developments.
