Resurgence and alternative‐reinforcer magnitude

Resurgence is defined as an increase in the frequency of a previously reinforced target response when an alternative source of reinforcement is suspended. Despite an extensive body of research examining factors that affect resurgence, the effects of alternative‐reinforcer magnitude have not been examined. Thus, the present experiments aimed to fill this gap in the literature. In Experiment 1, rats pressed levers for single‐pellet reinforcers during Phase 1. In Phase 2, target‐lever pressing was extinguished, and alternative‐lever pressing produced either five‐pellet, one‐pellet, or no alternative reinforcement. In Phase 3, alternative reinforcement was suspended to test for resurgence. Five‐pellet alternative reinforcement produced faster elimination and greater resurgence of target‐lever pressing than one‐pellet alternative reinforcement. In Experiment 2, effects of decreasing alternative‐reinforcer magnitude on resurgence were examined. Rats pressed levers and pulled chains for six‐pellet reinforcers during Phases 1 and 2, respectively. In Phase 3, alternative reinforcement was decreased to three pellets for one group, one pellet for a second group, and suspended altogether for a third group. Shifting from six‐pellet to one‐pellet alternative reinforcement produced as much resurgence as suspending alternative reinforcement altogether, while shifting from six pellets to three pellets did not produce resurgence. These results suggest that alternative‐reinforcer magnitude has effects on elimination and resurgence of target behavior that are similar to those of alternative‐reinforcer rate. Thus, both suppression of target behavior during alternative reinforcement and resurgence when conditions of alternative reinforcement are altered may be related to variables that affect the value of the alternative‐reinforcement source.     

The role of temporal intervals on reinforcer accumulation

Animals accumulate reinforcers when they forgo the opportunity to consume available food in favor of acquiring additional food for later consumption. Laboratory research has shown that reinforcer accumulation is facilitated when an interval (either spatial or temporal) separates earning from consuming reinforcers. However, there has been no systematic investigation on the interval separating consuming reinforcers from earning additional reinforcers. This oversight is problematic because this second interval is an integral part of much of the previous research on reinforcer accumulation. The purpose of the current study was to determine the independent contributions of these two temporal intervals on reinforcer accumulation in rats. Each left lever press earned a single food pellet; delivery of the accumulated pellet(s) occurred upon a right lever press. Conditions varied based on the presence of either an intertrial interval (ITI) that separated pellet delivery from the further opportunity to accumulate more pellets, or a delay‐to‐reinforcement that separated the right lever press from the delivery of the accumulated pellet(s). Delay and ITI values of 0, 5, 10 and 20 s were investigated. The delay‐to‐reinforcement conditions produced greater accumulation relative to the ITI conditions, despite accumulation increasing the density of reinforcement more substantially in the ITI conditions. This finding suggests that the temporal separation between reinforcer accumulation and subsequent delivery and consumption was a more critical variable in controlling reinforcer accumulation.     

Behavioral control by the response–reinforcer correlation

Using a discrete‐trials procedure, two experiments examined the effects of response–reinforcer correlations on responding while controlling molecular variables that operated at the moment of reinforcer delivery (e.g., response–reinforcer temporal contiguity, interresponse times preceding reinforcement). Each trial consisted of three successive components: Response, Timeout, and Reinforcement, with the duration of each component held constant. The correlation between the number of responses in the Response component and reinforcer deliveries in the Reinforcement component was varied. In the Positive‐correlation condition, a larger number of responses in the Response component programmed a higher reinforcement rate (Experiment 1) or a shorter time to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component. Although programmed in this way, the actual reinforcer delivery was dependent on, and occurred immediately after, a response in the Reinforcement component. In the Zero‐correlation condition, the programmed rates of reinforcement (Experiment 1) or the times to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component of each trial were yoked to those in the preceding Positive‐correlation condition. Responding in the Response component was higher in the Positive‐ than in the Zero‐correlation condition, without systematic changes in molecular variables. The results suggest that the response–reinforcer correlation can be a controlling variable of behavior.     

Humans' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount: Effects of the method of reinforcer delivery

Two experiments examined human subjects' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount under different methods of reinforcer delivery. Subjects chose between schedules varying in terms of amount and/or delay of reinforcement, the reinforcer being points exchangeable for money. In Experiment 1, reinforcer amount was manipulated by varying the monetary value of the points across conditions while the number of seconds of access to a consummatory response remained constant. Choice was strongly sensitive to reinforcer amount and indicative of self-control, as in previous experiments. In Experiment 2, reinforcer amount was manipulated by automatically delivering different numbers of points during the amount period, and the consummatory response was eliminated. Sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount was significantly lower than in Experiment 1. Furthermore, the subjects in Experiment 2 exhibited significantly less self-control than did the subjects in Experiment 1. Humans' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount appears to be affected by factors that enhance the discrimi-nability of the consequences of responding.     

Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy

Consideration of reinforcer magnitude may be important for maximizing the efficacy of treatment for problem behavior. Nonetheless, relatively little is known about children's preferences for different magnitudes of social reinforcement or the extent to which preference is related to differences in reinforcer efficacy. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the relations among reinforcer magnitude, preference, and efficacy by drawing on the procedures and results of basic experimentation in this area. Three children who engaged in problem behavior that was maintained by social positive reinforcement (attention, access to tangible items) participated. Results indicated that preference for different magnitudes of social reinforcement may predict reinforcer efficacy and that magnitude effects may be mediated by the schedule requirement.     

Self-control and choice in humans: Effects of video game playing as a positive reinforcer

Participants chose between reinforcement schedules differing in delay of reinforcement (interval between a choice response and onset of a video game) and/or amount of reinforcement (duration of access to the game). Experiment 1 showed that immediate reinforcement was preferred to delayed reinforcement with amount of reinforcement held constant, and a large reinforcer was preferred to a small reinforcer when both were obtainable immediately. Imposing a delay before the large reinforcer produced a preference for the immediate, small reinforcer in 40% of participants. This suggested a limited degree of “impulsivity.” In Experiment 2, unequal delays were extended by equal intervals, the amounts being kept equal. Preference for the shorter delay decreased, an effect that presumably makes possible the “preference reversal” phenomenon in studies of self-control. Overall, the results demonstrate that video game playing can produce useful, systematic data when used as a positive reinforcer for choice behavior in humans.     

An alternative method of thinning reinforcer delivery during differential reinforcement

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) may result in rates of reinforcement that are impractical for caregivers to implement; therefore, recent research has examined methods for thinning reinforcer delivery during DRA. In this study, reinforcer delivery was thinned during DRA by restricting access to the participant's alternative response materials.     

Nonconsumption of the reinforcer under drug action

Cats were trained to respond on a multiple discriminative schedule, with milk as reinforcement. Two subjects did not immediately consume the reinforcer when they were injected with 6 mg of methylphenidate before the experiment. This observation could be repeated in one of the subjects under various conditions of reinforcement and various doses of the drug. Control experiments showed that under normal conditions the same cats never ignored the reinforcer. The modification induced by the drug in the relationship between behavior and the reinforcement is discussed in its bearing on the notion of reinforcer.     

Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration

Twelve pigeons responded on two keys under concurrent variable-interval (VI) schedules. Over several series of conditions, relative and absolute magnitudes of reinforcement were varied. Within each series, relative rate of reinforcement was varied and sensitivity of behavior ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios was assessed. When responding at both alternatives was maintained by equal-sized small reinforcers, sensitivity to variation in reinforcer-rate ratios was the same as when large reinforcers were used. This result was observed when the overall rate of reinforcement was constant over conditions, and also in another series of concurrent schedules in which one schedule was kept constant at VI ached 120 s. Similarly, reinforcer magnitude did not affect the rate at which response allocation approached asymptote within a condition. When reinforcer magnitudes differred between the two responses and reinforcer-rate ratios were varied, sensitivity of behavior allocation was unaffected although response bias favored the schedule that arranged the larger reinforcers. Analysis of absolute response rates ratio sensitivity to reinforcement occurrred on the two keys showed that this invariance of response despite changes in reinforcement interaction that were observed in absolute response rates on the constant VI 120-s schedule. Response rate on the constant VI 120-s schedule was inversely related to reinforcer rate on the varied key and the strength of this relation depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcers arranged on varied key. Independence of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratios from relative and absolute reinforcer magnitude is consistent with the relativity and independence assumtions of the matching law.     

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.     

Stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determine resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement

The baseline rate of a reinforced target response decreases with the availability of response‐independent sources of alternative reinforcement; however, resistance to disruption and relapse increases. Because many behavioral treatments for problem behavior include response‐dependent reinforcement of alternative behavior, the present study assessed whether response‐dependent alternative reinforcement also decreases baseline response rates but increases resistance to extinction and relapse. We reinforced target responding at equal rates across two components of a multiple schedule with pigeons. We compared resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement of (1) a target response trained concurrently with a reinforced alternative response in one component with (2) a target response trained either concurrently or in separate components from the alternative response across conditions. Target response rates trained alone in baseline were higher but resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement tests were greater after training concurrently with the alternative response. In another assessment, training target and alternative responding together, but separating them during extinction and reinstatement tests, produced equal resistance to extinction and relapse. Together, these findings are consistent with behavioral momentum theory—operant response–reinforcer relations determined baseline response rates but Pavlovian stimulus–reinforcer relations established during training determined resistance to extinction and relapse. These findings imply that reinforcing alternative behavior to treat problem behavior could initially reduce rates but increase persistence.     

Unit price as a useful metric in analyzing effects of reinforcer magnitude.

In this paper, we applied the behavioral-economic concept of unit price to the study of reinforcer magnitude in an attempt to provide a consistent account of the effects of reinforcer magnitude on behavior. Recent research in the experimental analysis of behavior and in behavioral pharmacology suggests that reinforcer magnitude interacts with the schedule of reinforcement to determine response rate and total consumption. The utility of the unit-price concept thus stems from its ability to quantify this interaction as a cost-benefit ratio (i.e., unit price = characteristics of the schedule of reinforcement divided by magnitude of reinforcement). Research employing the unit-price concept has shown that as unit price increases, a positively decelerating function exists for consumption (i.e., a function with an increasingly negative slope, when plotted on log coordinates) and a bitonic function exists for response rate. Based on these findings, the present analysis applied the unit-price concept to those studies of reinforcer magnitude and drug self-administration that examined the effects of reinforcer magnitude on response rate using simple schedules of reinforcement (e.g., fixed-ratio schedule). This resulted in three findings: (a) Reinforcer-magnitude manipulations and schedule manipulations interact in a manner that can be quantified in terms of unit price as benefit and cost factors, respectively; (b) different reinforcer-magnitude manipulations are functionally interchangeable as benefit factors in the unit-price ratio; and (c) these conclusions appear warranted despite the differences in reinforcers (food or drug), species (dogs, monkeys, or rats), and schedules (interval or ratio), and despite the fact that these studies were not designed for a unit-price analysis. In methodological terms, these results provide further evidence that employing the unit-price concept is a parsimonious method for examining the effects of reinforcer magnitude. In theoretical terms, these results suggest that a single process may underlie the effect of combined reinforcer-magnitude and schedule manipulations.     

Assessing the role of alternative response rates and reinforcer rates in resistance to extinction of target responding when combining stimuli

Studies of behavioral momentum reveal that reinforcing an alternative response in the presence of a target response reduces the rate of target responding but increases its persistence, relative to training the target response on its own. Because of the parallels between these studies and differential‐reinforcement techniques to reduce problem behavior in clinical settings, alternative techniques to reduce problem behavior without enhancing its persistence are being explored. One potential solution is to train an alternative response in a separate stimulus context from problem behavior before combining the alternative stimulus with the target stimulus. The present study assessed how differences in reinforcement contingencies and rate for alternative responding influenced resistance to extinction of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli in pigeons. Across three experiments, alternative stimuli signaling a response–reinforcer dependency and greater reinforcer rates more effectively decreased the persistence of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli within the same extinction tests, but not when compared across separate extinction tests. Overall, these findings reveal that differences in competition between alternative and target responding produced by contingencies of alternative reinforcement could influence the effectiveness of treating problem behavior through combining stimulus contexts.     

Effects of reinforcer magnitude on responding under differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of rats and pigeons

Experiment I investigated the effects of reinforcer magnitude on differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule performance in three phases. In Phase 1, two groups of rats (n = 6 and 5) responded under a DRI. 72-s schedule with reinforcer magnitudes of either 30 or 300 microl of water. After acquisition, the water amounts were reversed for each rat. In Phase 2, the effects of the same reinforcer magnitudes on DRL 18-s schedule performance were examined across conditions. In Phase 3, each rat responded unider a DR1. 18-s schedule in which the water amotnts alternated between 30 and 300 microl daily. Throughout each phase of Experiment 1, the larger reinforcer magnitude resulted in higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates. The peak of the interresponse-time distributions was at a lower value tinder the larger reinforcer magnitude. In Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under a DRL 20-s schedule in which reinforcer magnitude (1-s or 6-s access to grain) varied iron session to session. Higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates occurred tinder the longer hopper duration. These results demonstrate that larger reinforcer magnitudes engender less efficient DRL schedule performance in both rats and pigeons, and when reinforcer magnitude was held constant between sessions or was varied daily. The present results are consistent with previous research demonstrating a decrease in efficiency as a function of increased reinforcer magnituide tinder procedures that require a period of time without a specified response. These findings also support the claim that DRI. schedule performance is not governed solely by a timing process.     

Every reinforcer counts: reinforcer magnitude and local preference

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. Sessions consisted of seven components, each lasting 10 reinforcers, with the conditions of reinforcement differing between components. The component sequence was randomly selected without replacement. In Experiment 1, the concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratios in components were all equal to 1.0, but across components reinforcer-magnitude ratios varied from 1:7 through 7:1. Three different overall reinforcer rates were arranged across conditions. In Experiment 2, the reinforcer-rate ratios varied across components from 27:1 to 1:27, and the reinforcer-magnitude ratios for each alternative were changed across conditions from 1:7 to 7:1. The results of Experiment 1 replicated the results for changing reinforcer-rate ratios across components reported by Davison and Baum (2000, 2002): Sensitivity to reinforcer-magnitude ratios increased with increasing numbers of reinforcers in components. Sensitivity to magnitude ratio, however, fell short of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratio. The degree of carryover from component to component depended on the reinforcer rate. Larger reinforcers produced larger and longer postreinforcer preference pulses than did smaller reinforcers. Similar results were found in Experiment 2, except that sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude was considerably higher and was greater for magnitudes that differed more from one another. Visit durations following reinforcers measured either as number of responses emitted or time spent responding before a changeover were longer following larger than following smaller reinforcers, and were longer following sequences of same reinforcers than following other sequences. The results add to the growing body of research that informs model building at local levels.     

A multicomponent approach to thinning reinforcer delivery during noncontingent reinforcement schedules

We evaluated a noncontingent reinforcement procedure that involved initially providing three subjects with signaled, continuous access to the functional reinforcer for aggression and slowly increasing the amount of time subjects were exposed to the signaled unavailability of the reinforcer. Additionally, alternative potential reinforcers were available throughout the sessions. Results showed immediate and substantial reductions in aggression for all three subjects. The clinical utility of this intervention is discussed, and future research directions are recommended.     

Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings

We examined how 3 special education students allocated their responding across two concurrently available tasks associated with unequal rates and equal versus unequal qualities of reinforcement. The students completed math problems from two alternative sets on concurrent variable-interval (VI) 30-s VI 120-s schedules of reinforcement. During the equal-quality reinforcer condition, high-quality (nickels) and low-quality items ("program money" in the school's token economy) were alternated across sessions as the reinforcer for both sets of problems. During the unequal-quality reinforcer condition, the low-quality reinforcer was used for the set of problems on the VI 30-s schedule, and the high-quality reinforcer was used for the set of problems on the VI 120-s schedule. Equal- and unequal-quality reinforcer conditions were alternated using a reversal design. Results showed that sensitivity to the features of the VI reinforcement schedules developed only after the reinforcement intervals were signaled through countdown timers. Thereafter, when reinforcer quality was equal, the time allocated to concurrent response alternatives was approximately proportional to obtained reinforcement, as predicted by the matching law. However the matching relation was disrupted when, as occurs in most natural choice situations, the quality of the reinforcers differed across the response options.     

A conditioned reinforcer maintained by temporal association with the termination of shock

Two experiments were conducted to determine whether a stimulus can be established as a positive conditioned reinforcer by associating it with the termination of shock, but without training the animal to make any response in its presence. In the first, six rats were conditioned to press a bar to terminate shock on a variable ratio schedule; white noise was then substituted as the immediate consequence, with the shock terminating 30 sec after the last press in its presence. It was found that the rate of pressing in the absence of noise depended on the contingency between the pressing and the noise. The second experiment sought to determine whether the difference in rates before and after the onset of the noise was due to the reinforcement of prior responding by the onset of the noise or to the suppression of subsequent responding by differential reinforcement of competing behavior. Six more rats were trained in the same manner, but with shock terminating 30 sec after the onset of the noise, regardless of what the animal did in its presence. Again the rate was higher before the onset of the noise, indicating that pressing was indeed maintained by the noise as a conditioned reinforcer.     

Behavioral similarity as a reinforcer for preschool children

Three experiments evaluated whether behavioral similarity provided by an adult could serve as a reinforcer for the modelling behavior of four preschoolers. In each experiment, sessions consisted of two kinds of trials: (1) experimenter-modelled trials, when the child's imitation of modelled motor responses was reinforced with praise and tokens, and (2) child-modelled trials when experimenter imitation of child-modelled responses was contingent upon the child's modelling one of three alternative responses: operation of a ball, horn, or clicker. Experiment I showed that the children consistently modelled whichever responses the experimenter imitated. Experiment II determined whether that performance was due to differences in the amount of experimenter behavior following imitated versus nonimitated child models or to experimenter imitation. Neither reducing nor increasing the amount of experimenter behavior following the children's nonimitated models altered their modelling of imitated responses. Experiment III evaluated whether experimenter imitation of child models was a reinforcer because the child's imitative responses were reinforced on experimenter-modelled trials. In Experiment III, the children's nonimitation of experimenter-models was reinforced with praise and tokens on a schedule of differential reinforcement of other behavior, yet they continued to model experimenter-imitated responses on child-modelled trials. These results indicate behavioral similarity was reinforcing, though no conditioning history through which it acquired that function was demonstrated.