Positive and negative reinforcement effects on behavior in a three-person microsociety

Three-person groups, either of males or of females, resided for 6 to 12 days in a continuously programmed environment. Subjects followed a behavioral program that determined the sequential and contingent relations within an inventory of activities. The program consisted of positive reinforcement days and avoidance days. During a positive reinforcement day, each work unit completed by a subject incremented a group account. The account was divided evenly among the three participants at the conclusion of the study. During a negative reinforcement day, no money was earned, and the group was assigned work unit criterion that, if completed, prevented a reduction in accumulated earnings. During negative reinforcement days, subjects made aggressive verbal responses, which differed in magnitude among the four groups. These differences were evident in several distinct behavioral measures. Performances on components of the work unit were not demonstrably affected by the reinforcement schedules in effect, although during the avoidance condition one subject stopped working and another subject's productivity declined.     

Response allocation to concurrent fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with work requirements by adults with mental retardation and typical preschool children.

The present experiments examined the effect of work requirements in combination with reinforcement schedule on the choice behavior of adults with mental retardation and preschool children. The work requirements of age-appropriate tasks (i.e., sorting silverware, jumping hurdles, tossing beanbags) were manipulated. Participants were presented with their choice of two response options for each trial that varied simultaneously on both work requirement and reinforcement schedule. Results showed that when responding to both choices occurred on the same reinforcement schedule, participants allocated most of their responses to the option with the easier work requirement. When the response option requiring less work was on a leaner reinforcement schedule, most participants shifted their choice to exert more work. There were individual differences across participants regarding their pattern of responding and when they switched from the lesser to the greater work requirement. Data showed that participants' responding was largely controlled by the reinforcement received for responding to each level of work. Various conceptualizations regarding the effects of work requirements on choice behavior are discussed.     

Learned helplessness: Not dependent upon cognitions, attributions, or other such phenomenal experiences

Subjects shot a light gun at a target with a photorecepter cell in the bull's-eye, with the only information regarding their accuracy being provided by reinforcing tone signals. Half the subjects received reinforcers contingent upon their hits. The others were yoked to the contingent subjects, receiving non-contingent reinforcers in the same patterns. Experiment 1 compared contingent or noncontingent positive or aversive reinforcers in their effect on subsequent anagrams performance. Phenomenal experiences, such as cognitive awareness, attributions, and moods, were assessed. Subjects exhibited a strong helplessness effect independent of their phenomenal experiences. In Experiment 2 the independent variables of contingent/noncontingent reinforcement and awareness of noncontingency were manipulated orthogonally by informing half the subjects that their reinforcement had been noncontingent in the target-shooting. Actual noncontingency produced a strong helplessness effect whereas “awareness of noncontingency” did not.     

Behaviour of ‘impulsive’ and ‘non-impulsive’ humans in a temporal differentiation schedule of reinforcement

The operant behaviour of psychometrically defined ‘impulsive’ and ‘non-impulsive’ subjects, under a temporal differentiation schedule of reinforcement, was examined. Four impulsive and four non-impulsive females were selected on the basis of their scores on the Matching Familiar Figures Test. The subjects participated in fifteen 45-min sessions in which they were exposed to an inter-response-time-greater-than-10-sec schedule of monetary reinforcement. During Phase I (sessions 1–5) no information was provided about the reinforcement contingency. During Phase II (sessions 6–10) a light on the response panel was illuminated whenever a reinforcer became available. At the start of Phase III (session 11) the subjects were given explicit information about the reinforcement contingency. At the start of Phase IV (sessions 12–15) the subjects were told that the light would no longer be operative although the contingency would remain unaltered. During Phase I the impulsive subjects earned fewer reinforcers, and emitted a greater proportion of non-reinforced responses (inter-response times less than 10 sec) than the non-impulsive subjects. During Phase II both groups increased their earnings, although the performance of the non-impulsive group remained superior to that of the impulsive group. In Phase III both groups performed equally well. In Phase IV the performance of both groups deteriorated, the impulsive group performing more poorly than the non-impulsive group. The results demonstrate the sensitivity of operant performance maintained under temporal differentiation schedules to personality dimensions such as ‘impulsiveness/non-impulsiveness’.     

Successive discrimination training with equated reinforcement frequencies: failure to obtain behavioral contrast

In two experiments, pigeons were trained on two-component multiple schedules in which responding in one component (S₁) was always maintained by a variable-interval schedule. In Experiment I, low response rates were reinforced in the second (S₂) component for six master subjects. This schedule was adjusted to equate reinforcement frequencies in the two components. These subjects were compared to yoked partners, for which reinforcement in the S₂ component was made available on a variable-interval schedule whose value was determined by the master subjects. A similar procedure was used in Experiment II, where the S₂ schedule for master subjects made reinforcers contingent on the absence of responding. No evidence was found in either experiment for a behavioral contrast effect in the S₁ component attributable to response reduction in the S₂ component. A reliable contrast effect was obtained from a group of pigeons given extinction conditions in the S₂ component, which was compared to a group maintained throughout on a multiple variable-interval schedule. The results suggest that previous indications of behavioral contrast in similar situations were probably caused by uneven reinforcement distributions or reflect uncontrolled fluctuations in response rates.     

Aversive aspects of a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement

The key pecking of pigeons was reinforced according to a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement. The pigeons were also given the opportunity to attack a restrained target pigeon. The attack rates during the sessions of fixed-interval reinforcement were higher than during the operant level sessions in four of the five pigeons. Most attack occurred during the post-reinforcement pause in key pecking. It was suggested that a fixed-interval schedule of positive reinforcement possesses aversive properties, the most aversive of which are located during the post-reinforcement pause.     

Evaluation of a lag schedule of reinforcement in a group contingency to promote varied naming of categories items with children

We compared the effects of Lag 0 and Lag 1 schedules of reinforcement on children's responses naming category items in a group context and subsequent responses emitted during individual testing in which the schedule of reinforcement remained Lag 0. Specifically, we measured response variability and novel responses to categories for 3 children who demonstrated the lowest level of variability during an initial individual Lag 0 testing session. An additional 3 children who emitted a high level of variability during initial individual Lag 0 testing sessions served as peers during group sessions. Results showed that participants conformed to the Lag 1 schedule and were more likely to repeat peer responses in the group and during individual testing in the Lag 1 condition. Furthermore, the reinforcement schedule in effect during group sessions affected participants’ varied responses during individual testing, during which the reinforcement schedule remained unchanged.     

Effect of variable-interval punishment on the behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of monetary reinforcement

One male and three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement under a range of variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtraction of money) according to a variable-interval 170-second schedule. In the absence of punishment, the rate of responding was an increasing negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency, as predicted by Herrnstein's equation. The effect of the punishment schedule was to suppress responding under lower frequencies of reinforcement; responding under higher reinforcement frequencies was much less affected. This was reflected in an increase in the value of K_H (the constant expressing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate), whereas there was no significant change in the value of R_max (the constant expressing the maximum response rate). Previous results had shown that variable-ratio punishment resulted in a change in the values of both constants (Bradshaw, Szabadi, and Bevan, 1977). The results of the present study were consistent with the concept that the suppressive effects of punishment on responding depend on the nature of the punishment schedule.     

Concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules and the matching relation

Five rats responded under concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Fixed-interval values ranged from 50-seconds to 300-seconds and variable-ratio values ranged from 30 to 360; a five-second changeover delay was in effect throughout the experiment. The relations between reinforcement ratios obtained from the two schedules and the ratios of responses and time spent on the schedules were described by Baum's (1974) generalized matching equation. All subjects undermatched both response and time ratios to reinforcement ratios, and all subjects displayed systematic bias in favor of the variable-ratio schedules. Response ratios undermatched reinforcement ratios less than did time ratios, but response ratios produced greater bias than did time ratios for every subject and for the group as a whole. Local rates of responding were generally higher on the variable-ratio than on the fixed-interval schedules. When responding was maintained by both schedules, a period of no responding on either schedule immediately after fixed-interval reinforcement typically was followed by high-rate responding on the variable-ratio schedule. At short fixed-interval values, when a changeover to the fixed-interval schedule was made, responding usually continued until fixed-interval reinforcement was obtained; at longer values, a changeover back to the variable-ratio schedule usually occurred when fixed-interval reinforcement was not forthcoming within a few seconds, and responding then alternated between the two schedules every few seconds until fixed-interval reinforcement finally was obtained.     

Producing a change from competition to sharing: effects of large and adjusting response requirements

Pairs of high-school students matched-to-sample for money. On each trial, the first pair member to complete a fixed ratio of knob-pulling responses could work the matching problem on that trial. Competition occurred when both pair members responded for the problem. Sharing occurred when only one pair member responded on each trial, and the subjects alternated trials. Hence, sharing requires less responding and still allows a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject. Recent research has shown that increasing the response requirement to the point that it may have aversive properties will produce a change from competition to sharing. A related variable is an adjusting schedule that adjusts the subjects' response requirements so that their abilities to take reinforcers are equal. In this way, subjects might learn that competition requires more responding but produces no more reinforcers. However, recent research also suggests that competition decreases over sessions without experimental manipulations. Because of this possibility of a time-related variable, ratio size and an adjusting schedule were studied in a group design. Competition did decrease for all groups over sessions, but the large-ratio groups switched from competition to sharing sooner than the low-ratio groups. The adjusting schedule had a similar but smaller effect.     

DESIGNING INCENTIVE PLANS FOR UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES: A COMPARISON OF CONTINUOUS AND VARIABLE RATIO REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES1

The relative effectiveness of incentive plans administered on continuous and VR-4 schedules of reinforcement was investigated with unionized employees using a within subjects design. Mountain beaver trappers working side by side were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In group A the trappers received $1.00 for every rat they trapped. At the end of four weeks, they were switched to a VR-4 schedule in which they received $4.00 contingent upon trapping a rat and correctly guessing the color of one of four marbles prior to drawing it from a bag held by the supervisor. In group B the order of the schedules was reversed. The results were analyzed in terms of cost-related, behavioral, and reaction criteria. The study increased employee productivity and decreased costs for the company. Inexperienced workers had higher productivity on the continuous reinforcement than on the VR-4 schedule; experienced workers had higher productivity on the VR-4 schedule than on the continuous schedule. Both the experienced and the inexperienced employees preferred the VR-4 schedule over the continuous schedule.     

Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior

Two experiments examined the relation between response variability and sensitivity to changes in reinforcement contingencies. In Experiment 1, two groups of college students were provided complete instructions regarding a button-pressing task; the instructions stated “press the button 40 times for each point” (exchangeable for money). Two additional groups received incomplete instructions that omitted the pattern of responding required for reinforcement under the same schedule. Sensitivity was tested in one completely instructed and one incompletely instructed group after responding had met a stability criterion, and for the remaining two groups after a short exposure to the original schedule. The three groups of subjects whose responding was completely instructed or who had met the stability criterion showed little variability at the moment of change in the reinforcement schedule. The responding of these three groups also was insensitive to the contingency change. Incompletely instructed short-exposure responding was more variable at the moment of schedule change and was sensitive to the new contingency in four of six cases. In Experiment 2, completely and incompletely instructed responding first met a stability criterion. This was followed by a test that showed no sensitivity to a contingency change. A strategic instruction was then presented that stated variable responding would work best. Five of 6 subjects showed increased variability after this instruction, and all 6 showed sensitivity to contingency change. The findings are discussed from a selectionist perspective that describes response acquisition as a process of variation, selection, and maintenance. From this perspective, sensitivity to contingency changes is described as a function of variables that produce response variability.     

Suppression of behavior by timeout punishment when suppression results in loss of positive reinforcement

This investigation, using rats as subjects and punishment by timeout for responses maintained on a ratio schedule, sought to determine whether behavior would be suppressed by timeout punishment when such suppression also reduced reinforcement density or frequency. A series of experiments indicated that timeout punishment suppressed responding, with the degree of suppression increasing as a function of the duration of the timeout period. Suppressive effects were found to decrease as a function of increases in deprivation (body weight) and were eliminated when the punished response also was reinforced. It was concluded that timeout can produce aversive effects even when loss of reinforcement results. An alternative interpretation of the findings, based on the effects of extinction periods and delay of reinforcement on chained behavior, was discussed.     

Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.     

The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.     

Effect of punishment on human variable-interval performance

Three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in a range of variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, rate of responding was an increasing negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency; the relationship between response rate and reinforcement frequency conformed to Herrnstein's equation. The effect of the punishment schedule was to suppress responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, while the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was increased.     

Interaction of fear effects with habit strength

Four groups of rats received 0, 3, 6 or 9 days of overtraining after having reached stable performance on a continuous reinforcement bar pressing schedule. Half the subjects in each group had previously been designated emotionally reactive or non-reactive in terms of defecation rates in an open-field test. Following training, there were four test days in which bar pressing in each group was examined in the presence or absence of white noise. The major findings were that, in both the reactive and non-reactive groups, white noise produced a fear reaction which significantly depressed bar pressing at low levels of habit strength while having an energizing effect at higher levels. The results were interpreted as supporting Bardach's (1960) hypothesis that anxiety introduced early in practice is more disruptive than when introduced late in practice.     

Preference for signalled reinforcement

Key pecking was reinforced on a two-component multiple schedule. A variable-interval schedule controlled reinforcement in both components. During one component, access to reinforcement was preceded by a tone; in the other component, a standard unsignalled schedule was in effect. After performance stabilized, subjects were given a choice between the signalled and unsignalled schedules. They were placed in the chamber with the unsignalled schedule in effect on the right key. A single response on the left, or changeover, key produced the signalled schedule for 1 min. Both pigeons in Experiment I pecked the changeover key at a rate sufficient to remain under the signalled schedule for over 90% of the session. Removing and reintroducing the tone demonstrated that the changeover-key responses were due to the occurrence of the tone. In Experiment II, when pecking the changeover key produced the unsignalled schedule, pecking the changeover key declined. The results may be explained either in terms of Hendry's information hypothesis or as escape from an intermittent positive reinforcement schedule.     

Preference for unpredictable food rewards occurs with high proportion of reinforced trials or alcohol if rewards are not delayed

Organisms typically prefer situations where reward and nonreward are predictable rather than unpredictable. Although many theories can account for this result (e.g., information theory and delay-reduction theory), a recently developed mathematical model (DMOD) also predicts that subjects prefer the unpredictable reward situation under conditions that substantially decrease aversiveness of unpredictable nonreward (Daly & Daly, 1982). Because a high proportion of reinforced trials (lenient schedule) and alcohol injections decrease aversive conditioning, these variables were tested with rats in five E-maze experiments. A choice to one side of the maze resulted in a stimulus uncorrelated with reward outcome (unpredictable situation). A choice to the other side resulted in stimuli correlated with reward and nonreward (predictable situation). The stimuli were not visible until after the choice was made. A lenient reinforcement schedule resulted in preference for the unpredictable reward situation if rewards were not delayed. Alcohol resulted in preference for the unpredictable reward situation if a medium five-pellet reward was given. A lenient reinforcement schedule combined with an alcohol injection resulted in faster acquisition of the preference for the unpredictable reward situation than did a lenient schedule combined with a saline control injection. These results pose a major challenge to most theories, yet were predicted by DMOD.     

Differential aversive learning enhances orientation discrimination

A number of recent studies have documented rapid changes in behavioural sensory acuity induced by aversive learning in the olfactory and auditory modalities. The effect of aversive learning on the discrimination of low-level features in the visual system of humans remains unclear. Here, we used a psychophysical staircase procedure to estimate discrimination thresholds for oriented grating stimuli, before and after differential aversive learning. We discovered that when a target grating orientation was conditioned with an aversive loud noise, it subsequently led to an improvement of discrimination acuity in nearly all subjects. However, no such change was observed in a control group conditioned to an orientation shifted by ±90° from the target. Our findings cannot be explained by contextual learning or sensitisation factors. The results converge with those reported in the olfactory modality and provide further evidence that early sensory systems can be rapidly modified by recently experienced reinforcement histories.