Behavioral contrast in competitive and noncompetitive environments

Three experiments examined the effects of opportunities for an alternative response (drinking) on positive behavioral contrast of rats' food-reinforced bar pressing. In both Experiments 1 and 2 the baseline multiple variable-interval schedules were rich (variable interval 10-s), and contrast was examined both with and without a water bottle present. In Experiment 1, the rats were not water deprived. When one component of the multiple schedule was changed to extinction, the rate of bar pressing increased in the constant component (positive behavioral contrast). The magnitude of contrast was larger when the bottle was absent than when it was present, as predicted by the matching law. Drinking did not shift from the constant variable-interval component to the extinction component, as might have been expected from competition theory. In Experiment 2, the rats were water deprived. Contrast was larger when the bottle was present than when it was absent, and drinking did shift to the extinction component, as predicted by competition theory. In Experiment 3, water-deprived rats responded on leaner multiple variable-interval schedules (60-s) in the presence of a water bottle. When one component was changed to extinction, contrast did not occur, and drinking did not shift to the extinction component. The present results suggest that there are at least two different sources of behavioral contrast: “competitive” contrast, observed when an alternative response occurs with high probability, and “noncompetitive” contrast, observed when an alternative response occurs with low probability. The results, in conjunction with earlier studies, also suggest that the form of the alternative response and the rate of food reinforcement provided by the multiple schedule combine to determine the amount of contrast.     

Behavioral contrast in fixed-interval components: effects of extinction-component duration.

Seven albino rats were exposed to a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which the two components (fixed interval and extinction) alternated such that a presentation of the extinction component followed each fixed-interval reinforcement. In baseline sessions, the duration of the extinction component was constant and always one-third of the fixed-interval value. Probe sessions contained a probe segment in which the duration of the extinction component was increased; the response rate in fixed-interval components during the probe segment was compared with the response rate in the segments preceding and following the probe. The effect of increasing the duration of the extinction component was studied under three values of fixed interval: 30 s, 120 s, and 18 s, in three successive conditions. Response rate within fixed intervals was a direct function of duration of the extinction component. Pausing at the beginning of the fixed interval decreased as extinction duration increased. These effects were larger and more consistent for the shorter fixed-interval values (18 s and 30 s). These results indicate a functional relation between relative component duration and responding. For the component providing more frequent reinforcement, this could be stated as an inverse relationship between relative component duration and response rate. This relation is similar to findings regarding the ratio of trial and intertrial duration in Pavlovian conditioning procedures, and suggests that behavioral contrast may be related to Pavlovian contingencies underlying the multiple schedule.     

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.     

Stimulus-reinforcer contingencies and local behavioral contrast

Four pigeons were exposed to a series of multiple schedules of variable-interval reinforcement in which pecks were required on one key (operant key) and components were signalled on a second key (signal key). Four additional pigeons experienced identical conditions, except that a yoking procedure delivered food on variable-time schedules, with no key pecks required. One of the components of the multiple schedule was constant throughout the experiment as a variable-interval (or variable-time) 30-second schedule. Operant-key responding during the constant component was uniform throughout the component, uninfluenced by changes in the duration of the variable component, and only slightly influenced by changes in reinforcement frequency correlated with the variable component. By comparison, signal-key response rate during the constant component was highest at the onset of the component, was higher when the variable component was 60-sec long than when it was 1-sec long, and was higher when no reinforcement occurred in the variable component than when reinforcement was scheduled in the variable component. These characteristics of signal-key pecking matched characteristics of local positive behavioral contrast. These data are taken to support the “additivity theory” of behavioral contrast and to suggest that Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations contribute primarily to the phenomenon of local positive contrast.     

Resistance to disruption in a classroom setting

Substantial experimental evidence indicates that behavior reinforced on a denser schedule is more resistant to disruption than is behavior reinforced on a thinner schedule. The present experiment studied resistance to disruption in a natural educational environment. Responding during familiar activities was reinforced on a multiple variable-interval (VI) 7-s VI 30-s schedule for 6 participants with developmental disabilities. Resistance to disruption was measured by presenting a distracting item. Response rates in the disruption components were compared to within-session response rates in prior baseline components. Results were consistent with the predictions of behavioral momentum theory for 5 of 6 participants.     

Independence of concurrent responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement

A pigeon's responses were reinforced on a variable-interval schedule on one key; and, concurrently, either a multiple or a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement was in effect on a second key. These concurrent schedules, conc VI 3 (mult VI 3 EXT) or conc VI 3 FI 6, were programmed with or without a changeover delay (COD). Because the COD provided that responses on one key could not be followed by reinforced responses on the other key, responding on one key was not likely to accidentally come under the control of the reinforcement schedule on the other. When the COD was used, the performances on each key were comparable to the performances maintained when these interval schedules are programmed separately. The VI schedule maintained a relatively constant rate of responding, even though the rate of responding on the second key varied in a manner appropriate to the schedule on the second key. The mult VI 3 EXT schedule maintained two separate rates of responding: a relatively high rate during the VI 3 component, and almost no responding during the EXT component. The FI schedule maintained the gradually increasing rate of responding within each interval that is characteristic of the performance maintained by this schedule. The concurrent performances, however, did include certain interactions involving the local characteristics of responding and the over-all rates of responding maintained by the various schedules. The relevance of the present findings to an inter-response time analysis of VI responding, a chaining account of FI responding, and the concept of the reflex reserve was discussed.     

Behavioral contrast for key pecking as a function of component duration when only one component varies

Pigeons pecked keys for food reinforcers delivered by multiple variable-interval 2-min variable-interval 2-min schedules. Positive behavioral contrast was created by changing one component to extinction; negative contrast was achieved by changing one component to a variable-interval 15-s schedule. The duration of each component was varied independently of the other from 5 to 960 s. The size of positive contrast was greatest when the extinction component was 30 or 60 s long. It did not change significantly with changes in the duration of the variable-interval 2-min component. The absolute size of negative contrast decreased with increases in the duration of the variable-interval 2-min component. It did not change significantly with changes in the duration of the variable-interval 15-s component. These results show that the size of contrast is determined primarily by the duration of the component that provides the less favorable conditions of reinforcement. These results are not predicted by current theories.     

Negative behavioral contrast on multiple treadle-press schedules

Eight pigeons pressed treadles for food reinforcers delivered by several multiple variable-interval schedules. The rate of reinforcement for responding during one component schedule was held constant at 30 reinforcers per hour. The rate of reinforcement for responding during the other component varied from 0 to 120 or 240 reinforcers per hour. The schedules were presented in different orders for different subjects. The rate of responding emitted during the variable component schedule varied directly with the rate of reinforcement it provided. The rate of responding during the constant component did not increase consistently when the rate of reinforcement obtained from the variable component decreased from 30 to 0 reinforcers per hr. The rate of responding emitted during the constant component decreased when the rate of reinforcement obtained from the variable component increased from 30 reinforcers per hour to a higher rate. That is, negative but not positive behavioral contrast occurred. The failure to find positive contrast is consistent with one of the predictions of the additive theories of behavioral contrast. Finding negative contrast has ambiguous implications for the additive theories.     

Positive and negative contrast as a function of component duration for key pecking and treadle pressing

Pigeons responded on several multiple schedules for food reinforcers. The duration of the components varied from four seconds to 16 minutes. The absolute size of positive (Experiment 1) and negative (Experiment 2) behavioral contrast varied inversely with component duration when key pecks produced the reinforcers. The absolute size of negative contrast varied directly with component duration, when treadle presses produced the reinforcers (Experiment 3). These results conform to theories that suggest that positive and negative contrast are symmetrical when pigeons peck keys. They also conform to theories that suggest that the same principles do not govern contrast when pigeons peck keys as when they press treadles. Finally, the results support the measurement of behavioral contrast by the differences between baseline rates of responding and the rates emitted when contrast is present.     

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.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded on multiple schedules arranged on a “main” key in a two-key experimental chamber. A constant schedule component was alternated with another component that was varied over conditions. On an extra response key, conjoint schedules of reinforcement that operated in both components were arranged concurrently with the multiple schedule on the main key. On the main key, changes in reinforcement rate in the varied component were inversely related to changes in response rates in the constant component (behavioral contrast). On the extra key, some reinforcers were reallocated between components, depending on the schedules in effect on the main key in the varied component. In the varied component, the obtained rates of reinforcement on the extra key were inversely related to main-key reinforcement rate. In the constant component, extra-key reinforcer rates were positively related to main-key reinforcer rates obtained in the varied component, and were not a function of response rates on the extra key. In two comparisons, the rate at which components alternated and the value of the main-key schedule in the constant component were varied. Consistent with earlier work, long components reduced the extent of contrast. Reductions in contrast as a function of component duration were accompanied by similar reductions in the extent of reinforcer reallocation on the extra key. In the second comparison, lowering the rate of reinforcement in the constant component increased the rate at which extra-key reinforcers were obtained, reduced the extent of reinforcer reallocation, and reduced contrast. Overall, the results are consistent with the suggestion that some contrast effects are due to the changes in extraneous reinforcement during the constant component, and that manipulations of component duration, and manipulations of the rate of reinforcement in the constant component, affect contrast because they influence the extent of extraneous reinforcer real-location.     

Contrast and undermatching with regular or irregular alternation of components

Behavioral contrast and response-ratio sensitivity to reinforcement were compared in multiple schedules in which components alternated strictly or according to a pseudorandom sequence. Average component durations in the two regimes were always 60 s, and order of presentation of component alternation regimes was counterbalanced across subjects. In Part 1, the reinforcer rate in one component was reduced from 60 per hour to zero, while that in the other component was unchanged. Positive behavioral contrast occurred in the constant component in that response rates increased, but neither the reliability nor the magnitude of contrast was affected by the manner in which components alternated. Part 2 was similar, except that a number of different reinforcer rates were used in the varied component. Neither contrast nor sensitivity of response ratios to changes in reinforcer ratios depended on the regime of component alternation. Thus, the predictability in time of future reinforcement conditions, which is a feature of regular multiple scheduling, does not appear to be a determinant of multiple-schedule performance.     

Contextual influences on resistance to disruption in children with intellectual disabilities

Training context can influence resistance to disruption under differing reinforcement schedules. With nonhumans, when relatively lean and rich reinforcement schedules are experienced in the context of a multiple schedule, greater resistance is found in the rich than the lean component, as described by behavioral momentum theory. By contrast, when the schedules are experienced in separated blocks of sessions (i.e., as single schedules), resistance is not consistently greater in either component. In the current study, two groups of 6 children with intellectual disabilities responded to stimuli presented in relatively lean or rich components. For both, reinforcers were delivered according to the same variable-interval reinforcement schedule; additionally, the rich component included the delivery of response-independent reinforcers. The Within group was trained on a multiple schedule in which lean and rich components alternated regularly within sessions; the Blocked group was trained on two single schedules in which sessions with either the lean or rich schedule were conducted in successive blocks. Disruption tests presented a concurrently available alternative stimulus disrupter signaling the availability of tangible reinforcers. All 6 Within participants showed greater resistance to disruption in the rich component, consistent with behavioral momentum theory. By contrast, there was no consistent or significant difference in resistance for Blocked participants. This finding is potentially relevant to the development of interventions in applied settings, where such interventions often approximate single schedules and include response-independent reinforcers.     

Two types of behavioral contrast in discrimination learning

Two groups of pigeons received daily discrimination training at two values on a line-tilt continuum. S+ (VI 1) and S- (EXT) intervals alternated, and a 30-sec criterion of no responding to S- was required before S+ returned. Rates of responding to S+ showed two separate contrast effects: at an intermediate stage of training a high peak rate appeared which declined, later in training, to a stable level still in excess of the VI baseline rate. The peak rate was correlated with the total number of responses to S-, while the final rate was not; suggesting that the peak rate and final rate may not be functions of the same variable. These results were compared with performance on a red-green discrimination where the two stages were not so clear. A line-tilt discrimination was repeated with fixed length S- intervals terminated by TO, and showed the same contrast magnitude in the final rate without any peak. The peak rate was interpreted as an effect of the ;punishment' contingency where responding to S- prolongs S- for 30 sec, while the final rate was taken to be analogous to previous demonstrations of contrast.     

Multiple schedules,off‐baseline reinforcement shifts,and resistance to extinction

Resistance to extinction in a target multiple‐schedule component varies inversely with the rate of reinforcement arranged in an alternative component during baseline. The present experiment asked whether changing the reinforcer rate in an alternative component would impact extinction of target component responding if those changes occurred in an off‐baseline phase during which the target component was never experienced. Pigeons' key pecking was studied in three types of conditions, and each condition consisted of three phases. In Phase 1, pecking produced food in the target and alternative components of a multiple schedule according to variable‐interval 60‐s schedules. In Phase 2, the alternative‐component stimulus was presented alone in a single schedule. Pecking during this phase produced the same reinforcer rate as in baseline in the Control condition, a higher rate of food (variable‐interval 15 s) in the High‐Rate condition, or was extinguished in the Extinction condition. Extinction of target‐ and alternative‐component key pecking then was assessed in a multiple schedule during the final phase of each condition. Resistance to extinction of target‐component key pecking was the same between the Control and High‐Rate conditions but lower in the Extinction condition. These findings are discussed in terms of discrimination and generalization processes.     

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.     

Key-peck durations under behavioral contrast and differential reinforcement

Pigeons were maintained on a multiple schedule in which both components were variable-interval one-minute schedules. When they were switched to a condition in which one component was extinction, behavioral contrast was observed. The median durations of the key pecks in the unchanged component did not decrease in size. The results are incompatible with a theory of behavioral contrast which considers the added pecks to be short-duration responses. In a second experiment, pigeons were required to emit short-duration key pecks in one component of a multiple schedule, and long-duration pecks in the other. Two of three pigeons learned to emit responses appropriate to the requirements of the component in effect, suggesting that the duration of the key-peck response is sensitive to differential reinforcement.     

Shortcomings of the behavioral competition theory of contrast: Reanalysis of McLean (1992)

McLean (1992) presented significant data showing that the occurrence of behavioral contrast in a multiple schedule was correlated with shifts in the frequency of reinforcers from a second source between components of the schedule, and interpreted his results as showing that contrast was due to changes in the degree of response competition within the constant component of the multiple schedule. Reanalysis of his data shows that there was an effect of reinforcement in the alternative component of the schedule independent of the shifts in reinforcers between components. Thus, the effect of relative rate of reinforcement cannot be ascribed, at least entirely, to the mechanisms proposed by the behavioral competition theory of contrast.     

Positive and negative behavioral contrast in the rat

Three groups of rats received either 8, 23, or 53 sessions of multiple variable-interval variable-interval baseline training before being shifted to a multiple extinction variable-interval schedule. The rate of responding during the unaltered component was higher for the groups shifted to multiple extinction variable-interval than for control groups remaining on multiple variable-interval variable-interval (positive contrast). Furthermore, when the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule was re-instated, stable negative contrast was found in the groups that had received 23 or 53 baseline sessions, but not for the group that had received only eight sessions. Positive and negative contrast were also demonstrated in the eight and 23-session groups when the multiple extinction variable-interval and multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules were re-administered in further phases of the experiment. These results suggest that both positive and negative behavioral contrast can be obtained reliably in a species other than the pigeon.     

Positive behavioral contrast when pigeons press treadles during multiple schedules

Pigeons were placed on multiple variable-interval 15-second variable-interval 15-second and on multiple variable-interval 15-second extinction schedules in which treadle presses produced food reinforcers. Positive behavioral contrast occurred. That is, rates of responding were higher during the variable-interval 15-second component when the other component was extinction than when it was another variable-interval 15-second schedule. These results contradict the findings of other studies, which failed to find positive contrast when pigeons pressed treadles for food reinforcers. They may also question the additive theories of behavioral contrast that predict that contrast should not occur in this situation.