Behavioral contrast: Pavlovian effects and anticipatory contrast.

Two sources of behavioral contrast have been identified previously: Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations and component sequence effects (anticipatory contrast). This study sought to isolate these sources of control procedurally in a four-ply multiple schedule composed of two fixed two-component sequences. Different cues were associated with the first component of each sequence, and contrast effects were studied in these target components. In Experiment 1, differential cuing of Component 2 between sequences and availability of reinforcement during target components were varied across three groups of pigeons; the stimulus-reinforcer relation between target-component cues and schedule of reinforcement in Component 2 was varied within subjects. Control by the Pavlovian relation was demonstrated under all conditions, and anticipatory contrast was not observed. In Experiment 2, target-component duration was systematically varied in the three groups of Experiment 1. Control by the Pavlovian relation was reliably obtained only when target-component behavior was unreinforced, and diminished with increases in component duration. Anticipatory contrast emerged in the two groups for which target-component reinforcement was available. These and other data indicate that Pavlovian effects in multiple schedules may be obscured when the requisite conditions for anticipatory contrast are present.     

Inverse relations between preference and contrast

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule in which two target components with identical reinforcement schedules were followed by either the same-valued schedule or by extinction. Response rate increased in both target components but was higher in the target component followed by extinction, replicating previous findings of positive anticipatory contrast. A similar design was used to study negative contrast, in that the two target components were followed either by the same-valued schedule or by a higher valued schedule. Negative contrast occurred equally, on average, in both target components, thus failing to demonstrate negative contrast that is specifically anticipatory in nature. When the stimuli correlated with the two target components were paired in choice tests, the pattern of preference was in the opposite direction. For the positive contrast procedure, no significant preference between the two target stimuli was evident. But for the negative contrast procedure, preference favored the stimulus followed by the higher valued schedule. The results demonstrate a functional dissociation between positive and negative contrast in relation to stimulus value. More generally, the results demonstrate an inverse relation between response rate and preference and challenge existing accounts of contrast in terms of the concept of relative value.     

Behavioral contrast redux

Behavioral contrast is defined as a change in response rate during a stimulus associated with a constant reinforcement schedule, in inverse relation to the rates of reinforcement in the surrounding stimulus conditions. Contrast has at least two functionally separable components: local contrast, which occurs after component transition, and molar contrast. Local contrast contributes to molar contrast under some conditions, but not generally. Molar contrast is due primarily to anticipatory contrast. However, anticipatory contrast with respect to response rate has been shown to be inversely related to stimulus preference, which challenges the widely held view that contrast effects reflect changes in stimulus value owing to the reinforcement context. More recent data demonstrate that the inverse relation between response rate and preference with respect to anticipatory contrast is due to Pavlovian contingencies embedded in anticipatory contrast procedures. When those contingencies are weakened, anticipatory contrast and stimulus preference are positively related, thus reaffirming the view that the reinforcing effectiveness of a constant schedule is inversely related to the value of the context of reinforcement in which it occurs. The underlying basis of how the context of reinforcement controls reinforcement value remains uncertain, although clear parallels exist between contrast and the effects of contingency in both Pavlovian and operant conditioning.     

From contrast to reinforcement: role of response contingency in anticipatory contrast

Intake of a 0.15% saccharin solution is suppressed if access to the saccharin is followed by access to 32% sucrose in brief daily pairings. The present series of four experiments was concerned with factors that lead to this anticipatory contrast effect (suppressed saccharin intake) rather than a reinforcement effect. In Experiment 1, anticipatory contrast was obtained with an autoshaping procedure (no lick requirement on the initial tube), and degree of contrast did not vary as a function of intersolution interval in the range of 0-15 s. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that requirements of 10, 100, 200, or 400 licks on the first tube available led to a reinforcement effect in latency, but a requirement of 0 licks (autoshaping procedure) led to a contrast effect in licks and latency. In Experiment 4, a group with a 200-contingent-lick requirement showed a reinforcement effect in latency, but a group yoked to this contingent group showed a contrast effect in both latency and licks. Overall, the results suggest that anticipatory contrast occurs under conditions of a "relaxed" instrumental contingency. The data are discussed in terms of control of behavior by stimulus-stimulus, response-stimulus, and stimulus-response associations, and the results are related to behavioral contrast, to flavor-outcome associations, and to "misbehavior" produced by Pavlovian-instrumental interactions.     

An analysis of reinforcement history effects

Four pigeons were exposed to two tandem variable-interval differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules under different stimulus conditions. The values of the tandem schedules were adjusted so that reinforcement rates in one stimulus condition were higher than those in the other, even though response rates in the two conditions were nearly identical. Following this, a fixed-interval schedule of either shorter or longer values than, or equal to the baseline schedule, was introduced in the two stimulus conditions respectively. Response rates during those fixed-interval schedules typically were higher in the presence of the stimuli previously correlated with the lower reinforcement rates than were those in the presence of the stimuli previously correlated with the higher reinforcement rates. Such effects of the reinforcement history were most prominent when the value of the fixed-interval schedule was shorter. The results are consistent with both incentive contrast and response strength conceptualizations of related effects. They also suggest methods for disentangling the effects of reinforcement rate on subsequent responding, from the response rate with which it is confounded in many conventional schedules of reinforcement.     

Absence of anticipatory contrast in rats trained on multiple schedules.

Rats were trained on three- and four-component multiple schedules in which two of the components were correlated with identical reinforcement schedules that remained unchanged throughout training. These target components differed in terms of whether their respective following schedules were either higher or lower in value. Unlike corresponding experiments previously reported with pigeons, higher response rates occurred in the target component followed by a higher valued schedule than in the target component followed by the lower valued schedule. Overall contrast effects occurred independently of these sequential effects, but were inconsistent across subjects. The results suggest that the effects of a following schedule of reinforcement are opposite for pigeons and rats, and that one reason previous studies have often failed to show contrast effects with rats is that the effects of the following schedule in rats are in competition with contrast dynamics.     

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.     

A re-examination of local contrast in multiple schedules

Pigeons were presented with multiple schedules of alternating 90-sec components. When components in which grain was never presented alternated with components in which grain was presented on a variable-interval schedule, the average rate of responding in the variable-interval components increased, showing overall positive behavioral contrast. Unlike previous reports, this study found that the response rates for all birds increased toward the end of the variable-interval components as training proceeded. This increase in local response rate disappeared when the multiple schedule was composed solely of variable-interval components and reappeared when the variable-interval components were again alternated with extinction. This finding cannot be predicted or explained by recent theories of behavioral contrast based on autoshaping, and thus questions their sufficiency. We suggest that this local response-rate increase results from the predictable change from high to low density of reinforcement at the end of the fixed-duration component. Thus, the present effect apparently illustrates a different type of interaction between components of a multiple schedule than that described by previous theories of contrast. In a given procedure, either or both types of interaction may occur; neither provides a complete account of behavioral contrast.     

Response additivity: effects of superimposed free reinforcement on a variable-interval baseline

Three experiments examined the effects of superimposing free reinforcement (Free VI 30-sec) on behavior maintained by a response dependent mult VI 2-min VI 2-min schedule of reinforcement. Experiment I used pigeons as subjects, key pecking as the response, and colors of response key as the stimuli associated with the multiple-schedule components. When free reinforcement was added during only one component (Differential condition) a large and highly significant increase in response rate developed in this component. Adding free reinforcement during both components (Nondifferential condition) produced smaller and far less-consistent effects. An entirely different pattern of results was obtained in two subsequent experiments, where similar procedures and reinforcement conditions were used with rats as subjects and bar pressing as the response. In both Experiments II and III, response rates decreased to the stimulus associated with added free reinforcement in the Differential condition. These findings are interpreted as the result of interactions between behavior maintained by response-reinforcer contingencies and behavior maintained by stimulus-reinforcer contingencies. As such, they support the main assumption of an autoshaping theory of behavioral contrast, that additivity of responding generated by the two kinds of contingency can occur only in situations favorable to autoshaping.     

Marking effects in instrumental performance on DRH schedules

Three experiments investigated the effect of presenting a brief stimulus after a response sequence on the rate of lever-pressing by rats on differential reinforcement of high rate (DRH) schedules. In Experiment 1 enhanced responding was produced by a visual stimulus presented during a 500-msec delay of reinforcement compared to a condition in which no stimulus was presented. In Experiment 2 rats responded on a multiple DRH DRH schedule in which the DRH contingency was reinforced on a 50% schedule in each component. Equivalent levels of responding occurred in the components when reinforcement was signalled in one component and when the signal was presented following the non-reinforced schedules in the other components. A further group of rats received the stimulus presented after non-reinforced schedules in one component but not at all in the other component; responding was enhanced in the former component relative to the latter component. In Experiment 3 brief stimuli presented after the completion of DRH components on a second-order VR (DRH) schedule elevated response rates irrespective of whether the signal was presented paired or unpaired with reinforcement. The present data support the view that a brief signal may serve to mark a response sequence in memory and facilitate instrumental performance.     

Food-avoidance in hungry pigeons, and other perplexities

Twenty-three pigeons were subjected to a series of procedures in which the key-peck's effects ranged from immediate, differential food reinforcement, through delayed reinforcement, the production of stimulus changes with and without probable secondary reinforcement, the prevention of food presentation ("food-avoidance"), to extinction. Neither primary nor secondary food reinforcement appeared to be essential for the maintenance or acquisition of key pecking. The food-avoidance contingency failed to suppress responding in any subject. Only complete extinction, when pecking produced neither food nor stimulus changes, eliminated all pecking for most subjects. A combination of stimulus-change reinforcement and food reinforcement appeared to account for the results, but only if it could be assumed that the presence of food in a procedure enhanced the reinforcing power of stimulus change, whether or not the food was also dependent upon responding. Such an interaction between reinforcers may be involved in the phenomenon of autoshaping.     

Contrast and autoshaping in multiple schedules varying reinforcer rate and duration

Thirteen master pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which reinforcement frequency (Experiment I) or duration (Experiment II) was varied. In Phases 1 and 3 of Experiment I, the values of the first and second components' random-interval schedules were 33 and 99 seconds, respectively. In Phase 2, these values were 99 seconds for both components. In Experiment II, a random-interval 33-second schedule was associated with each component. During Phases 1 and 3, the first and second components had hopper durations of 7.5 and 2.5 seconds respectively. During Phase 2, both components' hopper durations were 2.5 seconds. In each experiment, positive contrast obtained for about half the master subjects. The rest showed a rate increase in both components (positive induction). Each master subject's key colors and reinforcers were synchronously presented on a response-independent basis to a yoked control. Richer component key-pecking occurred during each experiment's Phases 1 and 3 among half these subjects. However, none responded during the contrast condition (unchanged component of each experiment's Phase 2). From this it is inferred that autoshaping did not contribute to the contrast and induction findings among master birds. Little evidence of local contrast (highest rate at beginning of richer component) was found in any subject. These data show that (a) contrast can occur independently from autoshaping, (b) contrast assays during equal-valued components may produce induction, (c) local contrast in multiple schedules often does not occur, and (d) differential hopper durations can produce autoshaping and contrast.     

The role of the magazine-response contingency on signal-directed responding in pigeons

Three experiments used a procedure for directly delivering water into the thirsty pigeon's mouth to explore the role that the instrumental magazine contingency plays in autoshaped responding. Magazine training was accomplished by requiring birds to contact a “magazine” key when it was illuminated, in order to obtain intraoral injections of water. Other subjects received water injections independent of a magazine-response contingency. Subsequently, magazine-trained subjects showed a transient enhancement in responding to the illumination of another “signal” key, whether that stimulus was presented alone or paired with water delivery. The overall level of maintained autoshaped responding was little influenced by the instrumental magazine contingency, although the within-trial time course of signal-directed responding was affected. When illumination of the signal key preceded access to water only when the signal was not contacted, pigeons directed many responses toward the signal key. However, there was no evidence that the instrumental magazine contingency enhanced responding on this omission schedule of reinforcement. These results thus confirm a small, but measurable contribution of the magazine-response contingency to signal-directed responding; they fail to support the conclusion that the instrumental magazine contingency greatly affects the outcomes of autoshaping studies.     

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.     

Determinants of contrast in the signal-key procedure: Evidence against additivity theory

Two experiments are reported that challenge the interpretation of previous results with the signal-key procedure, in which the discriminative stimuli are located on a response key different from the key associated with the operant response requirement. Experiment 1 replicated the procedure of Keller (1974), and found that contrast effects on the operant key occurred reliably for only one of four subjects. High rates to the signal key initially occurred for only one subject, but modifications of the procedure produced substantial rates to the signal key for all subjects. In all cases, however, signal-key behavior was greatly reduced by the addition of a changeover delay which prevented reinforcement within 2 seconds of the last peck to the signal key, suggesting that signal-key pecking was maintained primarily by adventitious reinforcement. Experiment 2 modified the signal-key procedure by using three response keys, so that the discriminative stimuli on the signal key controlled different responses during all phases of training. With this modification, reliable contrast effects on the operant key occurred for all subjects, suggesting that the failure to find contrast in previous studies has been due to the confounding of changes in the discrimination requirements with changes in relative rate of reinforcement. The results challenge the additivity theory of contrast, and suggest that “elicited” behavior plays a minor role, if any, in the determination of contrast effects in multiple schedules.     

Positive conditioned suppression: Transfer of performance between contingent and noncontingent reinforcement situations

Five homing pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. A fixed-duration stimulus was occasionally presented on one key; and, in various conditions, this stimulus terminated (a) without reinforcement, (b) in noncontingent reinforcement, (c) with reinforcement contingent on a response on the key on which the stimulus was presented, and (d) with reinforcement contingent on a response on the key on which the stimulus was not presented. Initially, a stimulus terminating in noncontingent reinforcement generally produced decreased response rates on both keys during the stimulus. Contingencies, however, reliably produced increased rates during the stimulus on the key on which the contingency was arranged, relative to the rate on the concurrently available key. Contingency conditions were followed by noncontingency conditions in which the separation of rates caused by contingencies was maintained. When rates during the stimulus were compared with response rates on the same keys in the absence of the stimulus, contingency-caused rate increases and decreases were again found, but only the rate decreases were maintained in subsequent noncontingency conditions. Further data suggested that the contingency-caused rate changes were not maintained when the stimulus terminated without reinforcement, and that they were unaffected by a threefold decrease in the reinforcement rate provided by the baseline schedules. The results support the suggestion that performance in the positive conditioned suppression procedure results from concurrent and multiple schedule interactions. They further suggest that the production of either acceleration or suppression is dependent on adventitious and historical contingencies.     

Sexual reinforcement in the female rat.

Sexual reinforcement in the female rat was studied in a preparation that allowed continuous operant responding for access to a male rat leading to intromission. Experiment 1 used a high operant level nose-poke response to test the possible reinforcing effects of some components of access to a male. A simple tone stimulus used as a conditioned reinforcer and two odor stimuli, target male bedding and emulsified preputial gland, were tested. None of these contingent events altered responding above or below operant level. Access to the male, which was always accompanied by intromission, immediately increased response rate when it was made contingent upon the nose-poke response. Performance on fixed-ratio schedules was erratic, and response rate was low in comparison to typical food-reinforced responding. An interresponse-time analysis indicated, however, that some effect of the ratio contingency may have been present. In Experiment 2, several modifications of the procedure were tested with the objective of creating a more tractable preparation for behavior analysis. Response type and the hormone delivery method were changed, and 2 target males were used instead of 1. The latter tripled the average number of reinforcers earned in a single session. Differences between sexual and other reinforcers are discussed in terms of procedural, quantitative, and motivational aspects of the sexual reinforcement procedure.     

The effect of signaled reinforcement on rats' fixed-interval responding

Four experiments examined the effect on rats' response rate of presenting a brief (500 ms) stimulus simultaneously with the delivery of food on fixed-interval (FI) schedules. In Experiment 1, reinforcement signals that were spatially diffuse (both tones and lights) elevated rates of responding, but responding was attenuated by localized visual stimuli. The remaining experiments examined the signal-induced potentiation of responding. In Experiment 2, a tone reinforcement signal potentiated response rates on an FI schedule, but attenuated response rates on a variable-interval (VI) schedule. This difference was obtained even though the overall rate of responding was equated on the two schedules before the introduction of the signal. Signal-induced potentiation of responding occurred over a range of FI values employed in Experiment 3. In Experiment 4, presenting a reinforcement signal when high local rates of response had occurred immediately before reinforcement resulted in potentiated rates of responding on an FI schedule. The opposite effect on response rate occurred when the reinforcement signal followed only low local rates of response. These results indicate that a variety of factors influence the effects of a reinforcement signal. They imply, however, that the local rate of response at the time of reinforcement is a key factor in establishing the nature of the signaling effect.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.     

Errorless discrimination established by differential autoshaping

In Experiment I, pigeons exposed to a differential autoshaping procedure pecked a key in the presence of the stimulus associated with reinforcement but did not peck, or pecked infrequently, in the presence of the stimulus associated with nonreinforcement. In Experiment II, pigeons were exposed to a differential autoshaping procedure in which one stimulus was associated with reinforcement and two stimuli were associated with nonreinforcement. The birds initially responded in the presence of one stimulus associated with nonreinforcement but never responded in the presence of the second stimulus associated with nonreinforcement. They were subsequently exposed to an autoshaping procedure in which reinforcement followed both these stimuli. The number of stimulus-reinforcement pairings required to establish pecking in the presence of the stimulus during which responses had not previously occurred suggested that such stimuli are inhibitory. These findings have implications for autoshaping, errorless discrimination, inhibition, and theories of discrimination byproducts.