Aperiodicity as a factor in choice

Four pigeons were trained to peck at either of two response-keys. Pecks at either key occasionally produced a secondary reinforcer, in the presence of which further pecks occasionally produced food, the primary reinforcer. All pigeons showed a consistent preference for variable (as compared to fixed) interval schedules of primary reinforcement.     

Secondary reinforcement and number of primary reinforcements

Pigeons' pecks on either of two concurrently available response keys produced secondary reinforcers according to independent one-minute variable-interval schedules. Different secondary reinforcers, in the presence of which the rates of primary reinforcement were equal, were associated with each key. The rate of pecking maintained by each secondary reinforcer varied directly, but nonproportionally, with the number of primary reinforcements given in the presence of the secondary reinforcer.     

Conditioned reinforcement value and resistance to change

Three experiments examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement value and primary reinforcement rate on resistance to change using a multiple schedule of observing-response procedures with pigeons. In the absence of observing responses in both components, unsignaled periods of variable-interval (VI) schedule food reinforcement alternated with extinction. Observing responses in both components intermittently produced 15 s of a stimulus associated with the VI schedule (i.e., S+). In the first experiment, a lower-valued conditioned reinforcer and a higher rate of primary reinforcement were arranged in one component by adding response-independent food deliveries uncorrelated with S+. In the second experiment, one component arranged a lower valued conditioned reinforcer but a higher rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the probability of VI schedule periods relative to extinction periods. In the third experiment, the two observing-response components provided similar rates of primary reinforcement but arranged different valued conditioned reinforcers. Across the three experiments, observing-response rates were typically higher in the component associated with the higher valued conditioned reinforcer. Resistance to change was not affected by conditioned reinforcement value, but was an orderly function of the rate of primary reinforcement obtained in the two components. One interpretation of these results is that S+ value does not affect response strength and that S+ deliveries increase response rates through a mechanism other than reinforcement. Alternatively, because resistance to change depends on the discriminative stimulus-reinforcer relation, the failure of S+ value to impact resistance to change could have resulted from a lack of transfer of S+ value to the broader discriminative context.     

Observing behavior: effects of rate and magnitude of primary reinforcement

Four experiments examined the free-operant observing behavior of rats. In Experiment 1, observing was a bitonic function of random-ratio schedule requirements for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 2, decreases in the magnitude of the primary reinforcer decreased observing. Experiment 3 examined observing when a random-ratio schedule or a yoked random-time schedule of primary reinforcement was in effect across conditions. Removing the response requirement for the primary reinforcer increased observing, suggesting that the effects of the random-ratio schedule in Experiment 1 likely were due to an interaction between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 4, decreasing the rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the duration of a random-time schedule decreased observing monotonically. Overall, these results suggest that observing decreases with decreases in the rate or magnitude of the primary reinforcer, but that behavior related to the primary reinforcer can affect observing and potentially affect measurement of conditioned reinforcing value.     

Matching and conditioned reinforcement rate

Attempts to examine the effects of variations in relative conditioned reinforcement rate on choice have been confounded by changes in rates of primary reinforcement or changes in the value of the conditioned reinforcer. To avoid these problems, this experiment used concurrent observing responses to examine sensitivity of choice to relative conditioned reinforcement rate. In the absence of observing responses, unsignaled periods of food delivery on a variable-interval 90-s schedule alternated with extinction on a center key (i.e., a mixed schedule was in effect). Two concurrently available observing responses produced 15-s access to a stimulus differentially associated with the schedule of food delivery (S+). The relative rate of S+ deliveries arranged by independent variable-interval schedules for the two observing responses varied across conditions. The relation between the ratio of observing responses and the ratio of S+ deliveries was well described by the generalized matching law, despite the absence of changes in the rate of food delivery. In addition, the value of the S+ deliveries likely remained constant across conditions because the ratio of S+ to mixed schedule food deliveries remained constant. Assuming that S+ deliveries serve as conditioned reinforcers, these findings are consistent with the functional similarity between primary and conditioned reinforcers suggested by general choice theories based on the concatenated matching law (e.g., contextual choice and hyperbolic value-added models). These findings are inconsistent with delay reduction theory, which has no terms for the effects of rate of conditioned reinforcement in the absence of changes in rate of primary reinforcement.     

Behavioral momentum theory fails to account for the effects of reinforcement rate on resurgence

The behavioral‐momentum model of resurgence predicts reinforcer rates within a resurgence preparation should have three effects on target behavior. First, higher reinforcer rates in baseline (Phase 1) produce more persistent target behavior during extinction plus alternative reinforcement. Second, higher rate alternative reinforcement during Phase 2 generates greater disruption of target responding during extinction. Finally, higher rates of either reinforcement source should produce greater responding when alternative reinforcement is suspended in Phase 3. Recent empirical reports have produced mixed results in terms of these predictions. Thus, the present experiment further examined reinforcer‐rate effects on persistence and resurgence. Rats pressed target levers for high‐rate or low‐rate variable‐interval food during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target‐lever pressing was extinguished, an alternative nose‐poke became available, and nose‐poking produced either high‐rate variable‐interval, low‐rate variable‐interval, or no (an extinction control) alternative reinforcement. Alternative reinforcement was suspended in Phase 3. For groups that received no alternative reinforcement, target‐lever pressing was less persistent following high‐rate than low‐rate Phase‐1 reinforcement. Target behavior was more persistent with low‐rate alternative reinforcement than with high‐rate alternative reinforcement or extinction alone. Finally, no differences in Phase‐3 responding were observed for groups that received either high‐rate or low‐rate alternative reinforcement, and resurgence occurred only following high‐rate alternative reinforcement. These findings are inconsistent with the momentum‐based model of resurgence. We conclude this model mischaracterizes the effects of reinforcer rates on persistence and resurgence of operant behavior.     

Reporting contingencies of reinforcement in concurrent schedules

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which two intensities of yellow light served as discriminative stimuli in a switching-key procedure. A conditional discrimination involving a simultaneous choice between red and green keys followed every reinforcer obtained from both alternatives. A response to the red side key was occasionally reinforced if the prior reinforcer had been obtained from the bright alternative, and a response to the green side key was occasionally reinforced if the prior reinforcer had been obtained from the dim alternative. Measures of the discriminability between the concurrent-schedule alternatives were obtained by varying the reinforcer ratio for correct red and correct green responses across conditions in two parts. Part 1 arranged equal rates of reinforcement in the concurrent schedule, and Part 2 provided a 9:1 concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio. Part 3 arranged a 1:9 reinforcer ratio in the conditional discrimination, and the concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio was varied across conditions. Varying the conditional discrimination reinforcer ratio did not affect response allocation in the concurrent schedule, but varying the concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio did affect conditional discrimination performance. These effects were incompatible with a contingency-discriminability model of concurrent-schedule performance (Davison & Jenkins, 1985), which implies a constant discriminability parameter that is independent of the obtained reinforcer ratio. However, a more detailed analysis of conditional discrimination performance showed that the discriminability between the concurrent-schedule alternatives decreased with time since changing over to an alternative. This effect, combined with aspects of the temporal distribution of reinforcers obtained in the concurrent schedules, qualitatively predicted the molar results and identified the conditions that operate whenever contingency discriminability remains constant.     

Rate changes after unscheduled omission and presentation of reinforcement

Changes in response rate similar to frustration effects were studied in a two-lever situation. Responding on one lever on a fixed-interval schedule produced access to water for 5 sec and an exteroceptive stimulus. In the presence of this stimulus, responding on another lever on a fixed-interval schedule produced access to water for 5 sec and terminated the stimulus. Occasional omission of a previously scheduled reinforcer after responding on the first lever resulted consistently in increases in rate on the second lever during the immediately succeeding interval. In another procedure, occasional presentation of a previously unscheduled reinforcer after responding on the first lever resulted consistently in decreases in rate on the second lever during the immediately succeeding interval. Changes occurred after the first omissions or presentations and were about the same in magnitude as the procedure continued over several sessions. Typically, an increase or decrease in rate was maintained throughout an entire 100-sec interval. Changes in rate on the second lever of approximately the same magnitude also occurred when rate on the first lever was near-zero under a schedule that differentially reinforced behavior other than lever pressing.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans

Two experiments with human subjects investigated the effects of rate of reinforcement and reinforcer magnitude upon choice. In Experiment 1, each of five subjects responded on four concurrent variable-interval schedules. In contrast to previous studies using non-human organisms, relative response rate did not closely match relative rate of reinforcement. Discrepancies ranged from 0.03 to 0.43 (mean equal to 0.19). Similar discrepancies were found between relative amount of time spent responding on each schedule and the corresponding relative rates of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, in which reinforcer magnitude was varied for each of five subjects, similar discrepancies ranging from 0.05 to 0.50 (mean equal to 0.21), were found between relative response rate and relative proportion of reinforcers received. In both experiments, changeover rates were lower on the long-interval concurrent schedules than on the short-interval ones. The results suggest that simple application of previous generalizations regarding the effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice for variable-interval schedules does not accurately describe human behavior in a simple laboratory situation.     

Relative reinforcer magnitude under a nonindependent concurrent schedule of cocaine reinforcement in rhesus monkeys.

Lever pressing by three rhesus monkeys was maintained under a two-lever concurrent schedule of cocaine reinforcement. Responding on one lever (constant-dose lever) produced a constant dose of 0.05 or 0.1 mg/kg/injection arranged according to a variable-interval 1-min schedule. Responding on the other lever (variable-dose lever) produced a comparison dose of cocaine (0.013 to 0.8 mg/kg/injection), also under a variable-interval 1-min schedule. The two variable-interval schedules were made nonindependent by arranging that the assignment of a reinforcer by one schedule inactivated the second schedule until the assigned reinforcer had been obtained. This modification ensured that the two cocaine doses were obtained with approximately equal frequency, regardless of the distribution of the subject's responding. Preference, indicated by relative response frequency on the variable-dose lever, was almost always for the larger of the doses and was a monotonic function of the comparison dose, except at the highest doses. Preferences at the highest comparison doses may have resulted from the low overall response rates exhibited at these doses. Relative response frequencies on the variable-dose lever roughly matched relative reinforcer magnitude (mg/kg/injection available on the variable-dose lever divided by the sum of mg/kg/injections available on each lever).     

Conditioned reinforcement and choice

In a series of three experiments, rats were exposed to successive schedule components arranged on two levers, in which lever pressing produced a light, and nose-key pressing produced water in 50% of the light periods. When one auditory signal was presented only during those light periods correlated with water on one lever, and a different signal was presented only during those light periods correlated with nonreinforcement on the other lever, the former lever was preferred in choice trials, and higher rates of responding were maintained on the former lever in nonchoice (forced) trials. Thus, the rats preferred a schedule component that included a conditioned reinforcer over one that did not, with the schedules of primary reinforcement and the information value of the signals equated. Preferences were maintained when one or the other of the auditory signals was deleted, but were not established in naive subjects when training began with either the positive or negative signal only. Discriminative control of nose-key pressing by the auditory signals was highly variable across subjects and was not correlated with choice.     

Improving conditional discrimination learning and memory in five-year-old children: Differential outcomes effect using different types of reinforcement

Previous studies have demonstrated that discriminative learning is facilitated when a particular outcome is associated with each relation to be learned. When this training procedure is applied (the differential outcomes procedure; DOP), learning is faster and better than when the typical common outcomes procedure or nondifferential outcomes (NDO) is used. Our primary purpose in the two experiments reported here was to assess the potential advantage of DOP in 5-year-old children using three different strategies of reinforcement in which (a) children received a reinforcer following a correct choice (“ + ”), (b) children lost a reinforcer following an incorrect choice (“ ? ”), or (c) children received a reinforcer following a correct choice and lost one following an incorrect choice (“ + / ? ”). In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effects of the presence of DOP and different types of reinforcement on learning and memory of a symbolic delayed matching-to-sample task using secondary and primary reinforcers. Experiment 2 was similar to the previous one except that only primary reinforcers were used. The results from these experiments indicated that, in general, children learned the task faster and showed higher performance and persistence of learning whenever differential outcomes were arranged independent of whether it was differential gain, loss, or combinations. A novel finding was that they performed the task better when they lost a reinforcer following an incorrect choice (type of training “ ? ”) in both experiments. A further novel finding was that the advantage of the DOP over the nondifferential outcomes training increased in a retention test.     

Chained concurrent schedules: reinforcement as situation transition

Pigeons' pecks at two white response keys (initial-link situation) occasionally turned both keys red (terminal-link situation). When the two keys were red, pecks occasionally produced food, after which the keys were again white. In both situations, a changeover delay prevented the response-produced outcome from immediately following a change of responding from either key to the other. In the initial-link situation, the ratio of pecks at the keys closely paralleled the ratio of transitions into the terminal-link situation produced by the pecks, conforming to the well-known matching relation. In the terminal-link situation, the peck ratios deviated from the matching relation toward indifference. Overall response rate and rate of changeover were generally higher in the terminal-link situation than in the initial-link situation. The finding of matching in the initial-link situation supports a definition of reinforcement as situation transition. The differences in performance between the two situations, viewed in the light of other recent findings, suggest that the effects of a changeover delay depend on the overall reinforcing value of the choice alternatives.     

Response acquisition under direct and indirect contingencies of reinforcement

We compared the effects of direct and indirect reinforcement contingencies on the performance of 6 individuals with profound developmental disabilities. Under both contingencies, completion of identical tasks (opening one of several types of containers) produced access to identical reinforcers. Under the direct contingency, the reinforcer was placed inside the container to be opened; under the indirect contingency, the therapist held the reinforcer and delivered it to the participant upon task completion. One participant immediately performed the task at 100% accuracy under both contingencies. Three participants showed either more immediate or larger improvements in performance under the direct contingency. The remaining 2 participants showed improved performance only under the direct reinforcement contingency. Data taken on the occurrence of "irrelevant" behaviors under the indirect contingency (e.g., reaching for the reinforcer instead of performing the task) provided some evidence that these behaviors may have interfered with task performance and that their occurrence was a function of differential stimulus control.     

Bouts of responding: the relation between bout rate and the rate of variable-interval reinforcement

By nose poking a lighted key, rats obtained food pellets on either a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement or a schedule that required an average of four additional responses after the end of tile variable-interval component (a tandem variable-interval variable-ratio 4 schedule). With both schedule types, the mean variable interval was varied between blocks of sessions from 16 min to 0.25 min. Total rate of key poking increased similarly as a function of the reinforcer rate for the two schedule types, but response rate was higher with than without the four-response requirement. Analysis of log survivor plots of interresponse times showed that key poking occurred in bouts. The rate of initiating bouts increased as a function of reinforcer rate but was either unaffected or was decreased by adding the four-response requirement. Within-bout response rate was insensitive to reinforcer rate and only inconsistently affected by the four-response requirement. For both kinds of schedule, the ratio of bout time to between-bout pause time was approximately a power function of reinforcer rate, with exponents above and below 1.0.     

Self-inhibiting effects of reinforcement

The reinforcers produced by one response reduce the rate of other, concurrently reinforced responses. An analysis of the logical and empirical implications of the relation indicates that one reinforcer must have this effect on responses maintained by other reinforcers even when all reinforcers are produced by the same class of responses. A quantitative expression of the relation leads to a formulation, mathematically equivalent to Herrnstein's (1970), in which the rate of a reinforced response is a joint function of (1) an excitatory effect of the reinforcers produced by that class of responses, and (2) an inhibitory effect of the total reinforcers produced both by that class and by other classes of responses.     

On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference

In a two-link, concurrent-chain schedule, pigeons' pecks on each key during the initial link occasionally produced a terminal link, during which only that key was operative. Responses in the terminal link were reinforced with food on either fixed-interval or variable-interval schedules. In one experiment, relative amount of responding in the initial link equaled the relative harmonic rate of reinforcement in the terminal links. In a second experiment, the selection of interreinforcement intervals in variable-interval schedules in the terminal links was such that rates of reinforcement based on the harmonic or on the arithmetic means of the interreinforcement intervals predicted opposite preferences in the initial links. The observed preference was consistent with that predicted by the harmonic rather than by the arithmetic rates of reinforcement.     

Effects of shifts in food reinforcement context on rats’ consumption of concurrently available water or sucrose solution

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of signaled transitions from relatively rich to lean conditions of food reinforcement on drinking concurrently available water or sucrose‐sweetened water in rats. Past research demonstrated that these negative incentive shifts produce behavioral disruption in the form of extended pausing on fixed‐ratio schedules. Four male Long‐Evans rats operated on a two‐component multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedule. In one manipulation, the ratio was held constant and the components arranged either a large six‐pellet reinforcer (rich) or small one‐pellet reinforcer (lean). In a second manipulation, the components both produced a one‐pellet reinforcer but differed in terms of the ratio requirement, with the rich and lean conditions corresponding to relatively small and large ratios. In both manipulations, components were pseudorandomly presented to arrange four transitions signaled by retractable levers: lean‐to‐lean, lean‐to‐rich, rich‐to‐rich, and rich‐to‐lean (the negative incentive shift). During experimental conditions, a bottle with lickometer was inserted in the chamber, providing concurrent access either to tap water or a 10% sucrose solution. The negative incentive shift produced considerably more drinking than the other transitions in all rats during both manipulations. The level of drinking was not polydipsic; rather, it appears that the negative incentive shift enhanced the value of concurrently available reinforcers relative to food reinforcement.     

Dual effects on choice of conditioned reinforcement frequency and conditioned reinforcement value

Pigeons were presented with a concurrent‐chains schedule in which the total time to primary reinforcement was equated for the two alternatives (VI 30 s VI 60 s vs. VI 60 s VI 30 s). In one set of conditions, the terminal links were signaled by the same stimulus, and in another set of conditions they were signaled by different stimuli. Choice was in favor of the shorter terminal link when the terminal links were differentially signaled but in favor of the shorter initial link (and longer terminal link) when the terminal links shared the same stimulus. Preference reversed regularly with reversals of the stimulus condition and was unrelated to the discrimination between the two terminal links during the nondifferential stimulus condition. The present results suggest that the relative value of the terminal‐link stimuli and the relative rate of conditioned reinforcer presentation are important influences on choice behavior, and that models of conditioned reinforcement need to include both factors.