The document "A Taxonomy of Instrumental Conditioning" by Paul J. Woods (1974) provides a comprehensive classification scheme for instrumental conditioning, which organizes and refines the understanding of various conditioning paradigms in psychology.

Key Points:

1. Historical Background: The author draws parallels with classification schemes in other sciences, like the periodic table in chemistry, which have both organizational and discovery value. Previous work in instrumental conditioning by Hilgard and Marquis (1940) and revisions by Kimble (1961) laid foundational categories like reward training, escape training, avoidance training, and secondary reward training.
2. Classification Evolution: Woods discusses the limitations of earlier schemes, noting that some paradigms were inadequately categorized or omitted, such as secondary reward training being treated separately rather than as part of reward training.
3. Grant’s Contribution: Grant (1964) introduced a classification based on three dichotomous dimensions: cue to reinforcement, response type (emitted or omitted), and reinforcement type (reward or punishment). This scheme resulted in eight categories of instrumental conditioning and highlighted the existence of unstudied paradigms like discriminated punishment training.
4. Proposed Taxonomy: Woods proposes an expanded and modified classification that includes all possible combinations of stimulus consequences (desirable or aversive) and their operations (presented/increased or removed/decreased). The new scheme categorizes conditioning paradigms into a matrix, each cell representing a unique conditioning type, such as reward conditioning, relief conditioning, and omission training.
5. Examples and Real-Life Applications: Each paradigm is illustrated with examples from laboratory research and everyday life. For instance, reward conditioning is common in operant procedures, while relief conditioning involves responses to reduce aversive stimuli. The taxonomy also addresses less commonly studied paradigms like omission reward conditioning (e.g., rewarding absence of undesirable behavior) and signaled omission punishment conditioning.
6. Terminological Clarity and Consistency: The proposed nomenclature aims to be systematic, consistent, and communicative. For example, the term "relief" replaces "escape" to describe the removal of aversive stimuli. The classification is designed to be exhaustive and mutually exclusive, ensuring each paradigm is distinctly defined.
7. Implications for Research: Woods emphasizes the need to explore these paradigms further to understand learned behavior changes across different operational manipulations. He calls for a break from traditional research paradigms, advocating for the investigation of less studied conditioning types and their practical implications.

Overall, Woods' taxonomy provides a structured and detailed framework for understanding and studying instrumental conditioning, highlighting the importance of clear classification in advancing psychological research and application.

Download below for the full publication: