The momentum of human behavior in a natural setting

Adults with mental retardation in a group home received popcorn or coffee reinforcers for sorting plastic dinnerware. In Part 1 of the experiment, reinforcers were dispensed according to a variable-interval 60-s schedule for sorting dinnerware of one color and according to a variable-interval 240-s schedule for sorting dinnerware of a different color in successive components of a multiple schedule. Sorting rates were similar in baseline, but when a video program was shown concurrently, sorting of dinnerware was more resistant to distraction when correlated with a higher rate of reinforcement. In Part 2 of the experiment, popcorn or coffee reinforcers were contingent upon sorting both colors of dinnerware according to variable-interval 60-s schedules, but additional reinforcers were given independently of sorting according to a variable-time 30-s schedule during one dinnerware-color component. Baseline sorting rate was lower but resistance to distraction by the video program was greater in the component with additional variable-time reinforcers. These results demonstrate that resistance to distraction depends on the rate of reinforcers obtained in the presence of component stimuli but is independent of baseline response rates and response–reinforcer contingencies. Moreover, these results are similar to those obtained in laboratory studies with pigeons, demonstrating that the determination of resistance to change by stimulus–reinforcer relations is not confined to controlled laboratory settings or unique to the pigeon.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers between multiple-schedule components

Four pigeons responded in components of multiple schedules in which two responses were available and reinforced with food. Pecks on the left key (“main” key) were reinforced at a constant rate in one component and at a rate that varied over conditions in the other component. When reinforcer rate was varied, behavioral contrast occurred in the constant component. On the right key (“extra” key), five variable-interval schedules and one variable-ratio schedule, presented conjointly, arranged reinforcers for responses in all conditions. These conjoint schedules were common to both multiple-schedule components—rather than unique to particular components—and reinforcers from these schedules could therefore be arranged in one component and obtained during the other component. In this way, the additional reinforcers were analogous to the “extraneous” reinforcers thought to maintain behavior other than pecking in conventional multiple schedules. Response rate on the extra key did not change systematically over conditions in the constant component, and in the varied component extra responding was inversely related to main-key reinforcement. All subjects obtained more extra-key reinforcers in whichever component arranged fewer main-key reinforcers. Consistent with the theory that reallocation of extraneous reinforcers may cause behavioral contrast, absolute reinforcer rate for the extra key in the constant component was low in conditions that produced positive contrast on the main key and high in those that produced negative contrast. Also consistent with this theory, behavioral contrast was reduced in two conditions that canceled extra-key reinforcers that had been arranged but not obtained at the end of components. Thus, a constraint on reallocation markedly reduced the extent of contrast.     

Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change

Two experiments with pigeons examined the effects of unsignaled, nonresetting delays of reinforcement on responding maintained by different reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, 3-s unsignaled delays were introduced into each component of a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s VI 90-s VI 540-s schedule. When considered as a proportion of the preceding immediate reinforcement baseline, responding was decreased similarly for the three multiple-schedule components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. In addition, the relation between response rates and reinforcement rates was altered such that both parameters of the single-response version of the matching law (i.e., k and Re) were decreased. Experiment 2 examined the effects of unsignaled delays ranging from 0.5 s to 8.0 s on responding maintained by a multiple VI 20-s VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement. Response rates in both components increased with brief unsignaled delays and decreased with longer delays. As in Experiment 1, response rates as a proportion of baseline were affected similarly for the two components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. Unlike delays imposed between two stimulus events, the effects of delays between responses and reinforcers do not appear to be attenuated when the average time between reinforcers is longer. In addition, the disruptions produced by unsignaled delays appear to be inconsistent with the general finding that responding maintained by higher rates of reinforcement is less resistant to change.     

Choice and segmented interreinforcement intervals

Pigeons were trained on a two-key concurrent schedule, where food reinforcers on one key were arranged by a simple variable-interval schedule and on the other key by a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule. When the initial link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons tended to respond more on the simple variable-interval schedule, and hence less on the chain, than would be expected from a comparison of both the local and overall rates of reinforcement of the two schedules. When the terminal link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons responded more on the chain than would be expected from a comparison of the rates of reinforcement of the schedules then in effect. Overall responding on the chain was not proportional to overall reinforcement on the chain but rather was a by-product of responding during initial- and terminal-link phases.     

Effects Of Histories Of Differential Reinforcement Of Response Rate On Variable-interval Responding

Three pigeons were exposed first to multiple differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate and differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules that were correlated with green and red keys, respectively, and then were shifted to a variable-interval schedule arranged on a white key. In subsequent test sessions, the variable-interval schedule continued to operate, but green and red keys replaced the white key in alternate sessions. In Part 1 of the experiment, the variable-interval schedule correlated with the white key was introduced immediately after the multiple-schedule condition, and the test condition began 15 days later. This sequence was repeated twice, with a reversal of the correlation of the key colors with the components of the multiple schedule at the start of each new cycle. Part 2 added a 6-month break between the multiple-schedule history and the white-key variable-interval schedule followed by test sessions. The procedure was then repeated with a reversal of the correlation between key colors and multiple-schedule components. In the test sessions of Part 1, all pigeons consistently responded faster in the presence of the key color most recently correlated with the differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate contingency than during the color most recently correlated with the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate contingency. Similar but smaller effects were observed in Part 2. The effects of the reversals in these two parts of the experiment showed that only the most recent contingency exerted an influence on subsequent responding. The data suggest that this effect of the most recent history continues to operate on behavior under current contingencies even after a long lapse of time.     

Behavioral momentum: the effects of the temporal separation of rates of reinforcement.

In Part 1 of the experiment, rats responded under a variable-interval (VI) 30-s schedule and a VI 120-s schedule, with each in effect for a block of consecutive sessions. That is, the two VI schedules were presented in successive conditions. In Part 2 the VI schedules alternated each day, and in Part 3 the schedules alternated within the session as a multiple schedule. For half of the rats in Parts 1 and 2, the VI schedule alternated every few minutes within the session with a stimulus that signaled extinction. For each part, once response rates had stabilized, resistance to change was measured by prefeeding and extinction. When the schedules were examined in successive conditions (Part 1), resistance to extinction was greater under the VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement than under the VI 30-s schedule, but no consistent differences in resistance to prefeeding were observed between the two VI schedules. When the VI schedules alternated each day (Part 2), resistance to extinction was greater under the VI 120-s schedule. However, no consistent differences in resistance to prefeeding were observed between the VI schedules without extinction in Group A, but resistance to prefeeding was greater under the VI 30-s schedule for rats with the added extinction component in Group B. When the VI schedules alternated within the session as a multiple schedule (Part 3), resistance to extinction and resistance to prefeeding were greater under the VI 30-s schedule. The data suggest that different rates of reinforcement, and their accompanying discriminative stimuli, must be compared within the same session (or at least on alternate days) to produce data consistent with the behavioral momentum model.     

Multiple determinants of the effects of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates

Four experiments examined the effects of increasing the number of food pellets given to hungry rats for a lever-press response. On a simple variable-interval 60-s schedule, increased number of pellets depressed response rates (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, the decrease in response rate as a function of increased reinforcement magnitude was demonstrated on a variable-interval 30-s schedule, but enhanced rates of response were obtained with the same increase in reinforcement magnitude on a variable-ratio 30 schedule. In Experiment 3, higher rates of responding were maintained by the component of a concurrent variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with a higher reinforcement magnitude. In Experiment 4, higher rates of response were produced in the component of a multiple variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with the higher reinforcement magnitude. It is suggested that on simple schedules greater reinforcer magnitudes shape the reinforced pattern of responding more effectively than do smaller reinforcement magnitudes. This effect is, however, overridden by another process, such a contrast, when two magnitudes are presented within a single session on two-component schedules.     

Variable-ratio versus variable-interval schedules: response rate, resistance to change, and preference

Two experiments asked whether resistance to change depended on variable-ratio as opposed to variable-interval contingencies of reinforcement and the different response rates they establish. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained on multiple random-ratio random-interval schedules with equated reinforcer rates. Baseline response rates were disrupted by intercomponent food, extinction, and prefeeding. Resistance to change relative to baseline was greater in the interval component, and the difference was correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher in the ratio component. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in one half of each session and on concurrent chains in the other half in which the terminal links corresponded to the multiple-schedule components. The schedules were varied over six conditions, including two with equated reinforcer rates. In concurrent chains, preference strongly overmatched the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates. In multiple schedules, relative resistance to response-independent food during intercomponent intervals, extinction, and intercomponent food plus extinction depended on the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates but was less sensitive than was preference. When reinforcer rates were similar, both preference and relative resistance were greater for the variable-interval schedule, and the differences were correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher on the variable-ratio schedule, confirming the results of Experiment 1. These results demonstrate that resistance to change and preference depend in part on response rate as well as obtained reinforcer rate, and challenge the independence of resistance to change and preference with respect to response rate proposed by behavioral momentum theory.     

On the relation between preference and resistance to change

Nevin (1979) noted that preference in concurrent chains and resistance to change in multiple schedules were correlated, in that both measures were affected similarly by variations in parameters of reinforcement such as rate, immediacy, and magnitude. To investigate the relationship between preference and resistance to change directly, we used a within-session procedure that arranged concurrent chains in one half of the session and a multiple schedule in the other half. The same variable-interval schedules served as terminal links in concurrent chains and as the components of the multiple schedule, and were signaled by the same stimuli. After performances had stabilized, responding in the multiple schedule was disrupted by delivering response-independent reinforcement during the blackout periods between components. Both preference in concurrent chains and relative resistance to change of multiple-schedule responding were well described as power functions of relative reinforcement rate, as predicted by current quantitative models (Grace, 1994; Nevin, 1992b). In addition, unsystematic variation in preference and resistance to change was positively correlated, which suggests that preference and resistance to change are independent measures of a single construct. That construct could be described as the learning that occurs regarding the prevailing conditions of reinforcement in a distinctive stimulus situation.     

Successive independence of multiple-schedule component performances

In three experiments, pigeons' responses were reinforced on two keys in each component of a series of multiple-schedule conditions. In each series, concurrent variable-interval schedules were constant in one component and were varied over conditions in the other component. In the first experiment both components arranged the same, constant total number of reinforcers, in the second the two components arranged constant but different totals, and in the third experiment the total was varied in one component and remained constant in the other. Relative reinforcer rate during the varied component was manipulated over conditions in all three experiments. In all these experiments, response and time allocation in the constant component were invariant when reinforcer ratios varied in the other component, demonstrating independence of behavior allocation in a multiple-schedule component from the relative reinforcer rate for the same alternatives in another component. In the two experiments which maintained constant reinforcer totals in components, sensitivity to reinforcement in the multiple schedules was the same as that in the concurrent schedules arranged during the varied component, with multiple-schedule bias in the experiment in which the totals were unequal.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled, and completely signaled delays to reinforcement

In Experiment 1, three pigeons' key pecking was maintained under a variable-interval 60-s schedule of food reinforcement. A 1-s unsignaled nonresetting delay to reinforcement was then added. Rates decreased and stabilized at values below those observed under immediate-reinforcement conditions. A brief stimulus change (key lit red for 0.5 s) was then arranged to follow immediately the peck that began the delay. Response rates quickly returned to baseline levels. Subsequently, rates near baseline levels were maintained with briefly signaled delays of 3 and 9 s. When a 27-s briefly signaled delay was instituted, response rates decreased to low levels. In Experiment 2, four pigeons' responding was first maintained under a multiple variable-interval 60-s (green key) variable-interval 60-s (red key) schedule. Response rates in both components fell to low levels when a 3-s unsignaled delay was added. In the first component delays were then briefly signaled in the same manner as Experiment 1, and in the second component they were signaled with a change in key color that remained until food was delivered. Response rates increased to near baseline levels in both components, and remained near baseline when the delays in both components were lengthened to 9 s. When delays were lengthened to 27 s, response rates fell to low levels in the briefly signaled delay component for three of four pigeons while remaining at or near baseline in the completely signaled delay component. In Experiment 3, low response rates under a 9-s unsignaled delay to reinforcement (tandem variable-interval 60 s fixed-time 9 s) increased when the delay was briefly signaled. The role of the brief stimulus as conditioned reinforcement may be a function of its temporal relation to food, and thus may be related to the eliciting function of the stimulus.     

On the form of the relation between response rates in a multiple schedule

Three pigeons received training on multiple variable-interval schedules with brief alternating components, concurrently with a fixed-interval schedule of food reinforcement on a second key. Fixed-interval performance exhibited typical increases in rate within the interval, and was independent of multiple-schedule responding. Responding on the multiple-schedule key decreased as a function of proximity to reinforcement on the fixed-interval key. The overall relative rate of responding in one component of the multiple schedule roughly matched the overall relative rate of reinforcement. Within the fixed interval, response rate during one multiple-schedule component was a monotonic, negatively accelerated function of response rate during the other component. To a first approximation, the data were described by a power function, where the exponent depended on the relative rate of reinforcement obtained in the two components. The relative rate of responding in one component of the multiple schedule increased as a function of proximity to fixed-interval reinforcement, and often exceeded the overall obtained relative rate of reinforcement. The form of the function relating response rates is discussed in relation to findings on rate-dependent effects of drugs, chaining, and the relation between response rate and reinforcement rate in single-schedule conditions.     

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 the discriminability of alternatives in three-alternative concurrent-schedule performance

Six pigeons were trained on two- and three-alternative concurrent schedules in which the alternatives were signaled by different wavelengths of light on the main pecking key. The schedules were arranged according to a switching-key procedure in which pecks on a white side key produced a 3-s blackout and, intermittently, a change in the variable-interval schedule of food programmed on the main (center) key after the blackout. In Part 1, a two-alternative concurrent variable-interval schedule was arranged in which the alternatives were signaled by 560 nm and 630 nm. Parts 2 and 3 arranged three-alternative concurrent variable-interval schedules with the alternatives signaled by 560 nm, 600 nm, and 630 nm (Part 2) and 560 nm, 623 nm, and 630 nm (Part 3). Within each part, the relative rate of food reinforcers available on the alternatives was varied across a wide range. In all parts of the experiment, the ratios of responses emitted between pairs of alternatives were more extreme than the ratios of reinforcers obtained on the pairs of alternatives, a result termed overmatching. In Parts 2 and 3, generalized matching sensitivities between pairs of alternatives were found to be higher when the reinforcer rate on the third alternative was low than when it was high—an apparent failure of the constant-ratio rule. The data were well described by an extension of the Davison and Jenkins (1985) model, which assumes differing discriminabilities between concurrent-schedule alternatives in combination with a punishing effect of blackout following changeovers.     

ALTERNATIVE REINFORCEMENT INCREASES RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: PAVLOVIAN OR OPERANT CONTINGENCIES?

Two multiple-schedule experiments with pigeons examined the effect of adding food reinforcement from an alternative source on the resistance of the reinforced response (target response) to the decremental effects of satiation and extinction. In Experiment 1, key pecks were reinforced by food in two components according to variable-interval schedules and, in some conditions, food was delivered according to variable-time schedules in one of the components. The rate of key pecking in a component was negatively related to the proportion of reinforcers from the alternative (variable-time) source. Resistance to satiation and extinction, in contrast, was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement in the component. Experiment 2 was conceptually similar except that the alternative reinforcers were contingent on a specific concurrent response. Again, the rate of the target response varied as a function of its relative reinforcement, but its resistance to satiation and extinction varied directly with the overall rate of reinforcement in the component stimulus regardless of its relative reinforcement. Together the results of the two experiments suggest that the relative reinforcement of a response (the operant contingency) determines its rate, whereas the stimulus-reinforcement contingency (a Pavlovian contingency) determines its resistance to change.     

Resistance To Change As A Function Of Stimulus-reinforcer And Location-reinforcer Contingencies

Pigeons responded on two keys in each component of a multiple concurrent schedule. In one series of conditions the distribution of reinforcers between keys within one component was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for key locations when summed across components. In a second series, reinforcer allocation between components was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for components, summed across key locations. In each condition, resistance to change was assessed by presenting response-independent reinforcers during intercomponent blackouts and (for the first series) by extinction of responding on both keys in both components. Resistance to change for response totals within a component was always greater for the component with the larger total reinforcer rate. However, resistance to change for response totals at a key location was not a positive function of total reinforcement for pecking that key; indeed, relative resistance to extinction for the two locations showed a weak negative relation to ratios of reinforcer totals for key location. These results confirm the determination of resistance to change by stimulus—reinforcer contingencies.     

Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons.

Four experiments examined the relationship between rate of reinforcement and resistance to change in rats' and pigeons' responses under simple and multiple schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 28 rats responded under either simple fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, or variable-interval schedules; in Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under simple fixed-ratio schedules. Under each schedule, rate of reinforcement varied across four successive conditions. In Experiment 3, 14 rats responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio schedule or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with two components that differed in rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 4, 7 pigeons responded under either a multiple fixed-ratio or a multiple fixed-interval schedule, each with three components that also differed in rate of reinforcement. Under each condition of each experiment, resistance to change was studied by measuring schedule-controlled performance under conditions with prefeeding, response-independent food during the schedule or during timeouts that separated components of the multiple schedules, and by measuring behavior under extinction. There were no consistent differences between rats and pigeons. There was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change when rates of reinforcement varied across successive conditions in the simple schedules. By comparison, in the multiple schedules there was a direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change during most tests of resistance to change. The major exception was delivering response-independent food during the schedule; this disrupted responding, but there was no direct relationship between rates of reinforcement and resistance to change in simple- or multiple-schedule contexts. The data suggest that rate of reinforcement determines resistance to change in multiple schedules, but that this relationship does not hold under simple schedules.     

Effects of delayed conditioned reinforcement in chain schedules.

The contingency between responding and stimulus change on a chain variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s schedule was weakened by interposing 3-s delays between either the first and second or the second and third links. No stimulus change signaled the delay interval and responses could occur during it, so the obtained delays were often shorter than the scheduled delay. When the delay occurred after the initial link, initial-link response rates decreased by an average of 77% with no systematic change in response rates in the second or third links. Response rates in the second link decreased an average of 59% when the delay followed that link, again with little effect on response rates in the first or third links. Because the effect of delaying stimulus change was comparable to the effect of delaying primary reinforcement in a simple variable-interval schedule, and the effect of the unsignaled delay was specific to the link in which the delay occurred, the results provide strong evidence for the concept of conditioned reinforcement.     

Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation

The effects of two alternative sources of food delivery on the key-peck responding of pigeons were examined. Pecking was maintained by a variable-interval 3-min schedule. In the presence of this schedule in different conditions, either a variable-time 3-min schedule delivering food independently of responding or an equivalent schedule that required a minimum 2-s pause between a key peck and food delivery (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule) was added. The differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule reduced response rates more than did the variable-time schedule in most instances. The delay between a key peck and the next reinforcer consistently was longer under the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule than under the variable-time schedule. Response rates and median delay between responses and reinforcers were negatively correlated. These results contradict earlier conclusions about the behavioral effects of alternative reinforcement. They suggest that an interpretation in terms of response–reinforcer contiguity is consistent with the data.     

Concurrent performances: rate constancies without changeover delays

Pigeons' pecks on two keys were maintained, without changeover delays, by independent variable-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Four regularly cycling 2-min components scheduled reinforcement respectively for both keys, left key only, both keys, and right key only. Initially, reinforcement scheduled for one key alone produced more responding on that key than reinforcement scheduled concurrently for both keys. Continued sessions reduced this difference; response rate on a given key approached constancy, or invariance with respect to the performance on and schedule for the other key. When extinction replaced the reinforcement schedule on either key, responding on that key decreased more during components that scheduled reinforcement for the other key than during those that did not. This demonstration that responses on one key were not supported by reinforcers on the other key suggested that the alternation of concurrent responding and either-key-alone responding prevented concurrent superstitions from developing.