Contiguity versus Contingency - written for school

Contiguity and contingency may both be effective tools for the formation of associations. Contiguity is literally, “the state of bordering or being in direct contact with something.” In the world of psychology, contiguity is used to explain the order or the closeness of stimulus and response in occurrence, leading to the formation of association – or, simply, timing. Contingency, on the other hand, is “a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.” In psychology, contingency is simplified as the reliability of the association. Both are useful tools in the formation of associations, but the question is whether or not one of these tools is more useful than the other, or if they are both necessary to utilize when forming associations in the mind.

            Contiguity of associations is very straightforward. If a behavior is rewarded, it is more likely to be repeated. If the behavior is rewarded quickly after the behavior occurs, it is even more likely to be repeated. It has been observed that continuously delaying delivery of reinforcement tends to result in a decrease in the target behavior. Delayed learning can occur, however, if little activity interferes between the target response and the reinforcer. Edward Thorndike believed that temporal contiguity is a critical feature of the response-reinforcer relationship. Pavlov agreed, to a certain extent, but believed that the CS-US contiguity alone may not be enough. Superstition is a part of contiguity in learning. Skinner first observed this behavior in pigeons that were displaying interim behavior in-between regular temporal intervals in which Skinner gave the pigeons food. Each of the pigeons developed a different behavior in an attempt to get the reward, because each pigeon was most likely doing something different when they were rewarded previously.

            Contingency is most easily seen in correlations between the conditioned stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus. Contingency is important in anticipation of an event, as it helps to form the “if-then” relationship in the association. In contingency learning, the signal serves only to change the predictability of the context. By making it less predictable, the signal reduces the extent to which the context competes with the operant response in behavior. Contingency is observed in learned helplessness. When the animal gives up any hope of being able to save itself from the persistent shocks, it simply gives up. The contingency is observed in the animal believing that the shocks are coming, no matter what.

            Contiguity and contingency are both suitable tools for learning. Contingency, as seen in the example of learned helplessness, is sufficient for learning. Contiguity, however, appears to be necessary for learning. It is possible for delayed learning to occur, but it is not nearly as productive for learning as a speedy association formed with a timely reward. Temporal contiguity is the most efficient way to reinforce behavior.