The role of contingencies and "principles of behavioral variation" in pigeons' pecking

Staddon and Simmelhag's proposal that behavior is produced by “principles of behavioral variation” instead of contingencies of reinforcement was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-interval schedule of response-contingent reinforcement, an autoshaping schedule of stimulus-contingent reinforcement, or a fixed-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pigeons exposed to contingent reinforcement came to peck more rapidly than those exposed to noncontingent reinforcement. Staddon and Simmelhag's “principles of behavioral variation” included the proposal that patterns (interim and terminal) were a function of momentary probability of reinforcement. In the second experiment pigeons were exposed to either a fixed-time or a random-time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. Pecking showed a constant frequency of occurrence over postfood time on the random-time schedule. Most behavior showed patterns on the fixed-time schedule that differed in overall shape (i.e., interim versus terminal) from those shown on the random-time schedule. It was concluded that both the momentary probability of reinforcement and postfood time can affect patterning.     

Contrast as seen in visual search reaction times.

Three pigeons searched arrays of alphabetic letters displayed on computer monitors. On each trial, either an A or an E appeared, and the reaction time and accuracy with which the bird pecked at this target were measured. In each block of trials, each target (A or E) was displayed alone, or together with a number of distractor letters (2 or 18) that varied in their similarity to the target. During a baseline series of sessions, responses to the A and to the E each yielded food reinforcement on 10% of the trials. In the next series of sessions, reinforcement continued at 10% for A, but rose to 30% for E. In a final series, these reinforcement conditions were reversed. As expected, reaction times increased with target-distractor similarity and (for similar distractors) with the number of distractors. Increased reinforcement of E had no effect on reaction times to E, but produced a very consistent increase in reaction times to A; the average increase was constant across the various display conditions. Reversal of the differential reinforcement conditions reversed this contrast effect. Analysis of the reaction time distributions indicated that increased reinforcement to E decreased the momentary probability of response to A by a constant amount, regardless of display conditions. These results are discussed in relation to theories of contrast, memory, and of the search image.     

Quantification of rats' behavior during reinforcement periods

What is treated as a single unit of reinforcement often involves what could be called a reinforcement period during which two or more acts of ingestion may occur, and each of these may have associated with it a series of responses, some reflexive, some learned, that lead up to ingestion. Food-tray presentation to a pigeon is an example of such a “reinforcement period.” In order to quantify this behavior, a continuous-reinforcement schedule was used as the reinforcement period and was chained to a fixed-ratio schedule. Both fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration were manipulated. Rats were used as subjects, food as reinforcement, and a lever press as the operant. Major findings included (a) a rapid decline in response rates during the first 15 to 20 seconds of the reinforcement periods, and (b) a strong positive relationship between these response rates and the size of the fixed ratio. Also revealed was a short scallop not normally found in fixed-ratio response patterns, whose length was a function of fixed-ratio size and reinforcement-period duration. It is suggested that rapidly fluctuating excitatory processes can account for many of these findings and that such processes are functionally significant in terms of behavioral compensation.     

Residence time and choice in concurrent foraging schedules

Five pigeons were trained on a concurrent-schedule analogue of the “some patches are empty” procedure. Two concurrently available alternatives were arranged on a single response key and were signaled by red and green keylights. A subject could travel between these alternatives by responding on a second yellow “switching” key. Following a changeover to a patch, there was a probability (p) that a single reinforcer would be available on that alternative for a response after a time determined by the value of λ, a probability of reinforcement per second. The overall scheduling of reinforcers on the two alternatives was arranged nonindependently, and the available alternative was switched after each reinforcer. In Part 1 of the experiment, the probabilities of reinforcement, ρ_red and ρ_green, were equal on the two alternatives, and the arranged arrival rates of reinforcers, λ_red and λ_green, were varied across conditions. In Part 2, the reinforcer arrival times were arranged to be equal, and the reinforcer probabilities were varied across conditions. In Part 3, both parameters were varied. The results replicated those seen in studies that have investigated time allocation in a single patch: Both response and time allocation to an alternative increased with decreasing values of λ and with increasing values of ρ, and residence times were consistently greater than those that would maximize obtained reinforcer rates. Furthermore, both response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched mean reinforcer-arrival time and reinforcer-frequency ratios.     

Temporal proximity and reinforcement sensitivity in multiple schedules

Distributions of reinforcers between two components of multiple variable-interval schedules were varied over a number of conditions. Sensitivity to reinforcement, measured by the exponent of the power function relating ratios of responses in the two components to ratios of reinforcers obtained in the components, did not differ between conditions with 15-s or 60-s component durations. The failure to demonstrate the “short-component effect,” where sensitivity is high for short components, was consistent with reanalysis of previous data. With 60-s components, sensitivity to reinforcement decreased systematically with time since component alternation, and was higher in the first 15-s subinterval of the 60-s component than for the component whose total duration was 15 s. Varying component duration and sampling behavior at different times since component transition may not be equivalent ways of examining the effects of average temporal distance between components.     

Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration

Three pigeons performed on two-component multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. There were two independent variables: component duration and the relative frequency of reinforcement in a component. The component duration, which was always the same in both components, was varied over experimental conditions from 2 to 180 sec. Over these conditions, the relative frequency of reinforcement in a component was either 0.2 or 0.8 (±0.03). As the component duration was shortened, the relative frequency of responding in a component approached a value equal to the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. When the relative frequency of reinforcement was varied over conditions in which the component duration was fixed at 5 sec, the relative frequency of responding in a component closely approximated the relative frequency of reinforcement in that component. That is, the familiar matching relationship, obtained previously only with concurrent schedules, was obtained in multiple schedules with a short component duration.     

Pictorial target control of schedule-induced attack in White Carneaux pigeons

Three pigeons with a history of attacking a mirror target, and two of six pigeons with no prior exposure to targets, attacked a colored photograph of a conspecific during exposure to intermittent schedules of reinforcement for key pecking. Rate of attack on the photograph decreased when the reinforcement schedule was removed. The topography, temporal pattern, and locus of attack on the picture were comparable to schedule-induced attack on live, stuffed, and mirror targets. When silhouette, outline, and plain paper targets were used, schedule-induced attack was more sensitive to a change in target characteristics with a concurrent target-preference procedure than with an analogous successive-testing procedure. The combined results of the two testing procedures indicated that an “upright” white-on-black silhouette of a pigeon with or without an eye was more effective in controlling attack than was a comparable “inverted” silhouette, an outline of a pigeon, or a piece of colored paper.     

Steady-state performance on fixed-, mixed-, and random-ratio schedules

Three groups of rats pressed a lever for milk reinforcers on various simple reinforcement schedules (one schedule per condition). In Group M, each pair of conditions included a mixed-ratio schedule and a fixed-ratio schedule with equal average response:reinforcer ratios. On mixed-ratio schedules, reinforcement occurred with equal probability after a small or a large response requirement was met. In Group R, fixed-ratio and random-ratio schedules were compared in each pair of conditions. For all subjects in these two groups, the frequency distributions of interresponse times of less than one second were very similar on all ratio schedules, exhibiting a peak at about .2 seconds. For comparison, subjects in Group V responded on variable-interval schedules, and few interresponse times as short as .2 seconds were recorded. The results suggest that the rate of continuous responding is the same on all ratio schedules, and what varies among ratio schedules is the frequency, location, and duration of pauses. Preratio pauses were longer on fixed-ratio schedules than on mixed-ratio or random-ratio schedules, but there was more within-ratio pausing on mixed-ratio and random-ratio schedules. Across a single trial, the probability of an interruption in responding decreased on fixed-ratio schedules, was roughly constant on random-ratio schedules, and often increased and then decreased on mixed-ratio schedules. These response patterns provided partial support for Mazur's (1982) theory that the probability of instrumental responding is directly related to the probability of reinforcement and the proximity of reinforcement.     

A test of the reinforcing properties of stimuli correlated with nonreinforcement

The information hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement predicts that a stimulus that “reduces uncertainty” about the outcome of a trial will acquire reinforcing properties, even when the stimulus reliably predicts nonreinforcement. Four pigeons' key pecks produced one of two 5-sec stimuli with 0.50 probability according to a discriminated variable-interval schedule. One stimulus was followed by reinforcement; a second stimulus was followed by blackout. To the same extent, therefore, both stimuli reduced uncertainty about the possibility that food would arrive at the termination of the schedule interval. When a second key in the chamber was lighted, each peck on it could produce the stimulus preceding reinforcement, the stimulus preceding nonreinforcement, a novel stimulus, or no stimulus, across separate conditions. The stimulus preceding food maintained responding at substantial levels on the second, stimulus-producing, key. Such responding was not maintained by other stimuli. These data, replicated when the stimuli were reversed on the variable-interval schedule, do not support the prediction that uncertainty-reducing stimuli are necessarily conditioned reinforcers.     

Effects of hunger and VI value on VI pacing

In two experiments, each involving four rats, responses preceded by an inter-response time between 8 and 10 sec in duration were intermittently reinforced. In Experiment I, final performance was compared under two hunger levels, while the frequency of reinforcement was held constant by a VI 5 schedule. In Experiment II, hunger was held constant and VI 3 was compared with VI 8. Both hunger and frequency of reinforcement increased the over-all rate of response, but the exact effects of these operations on temporal discrimination were different for different rats. Usually, a peak “response probability” (IRTs/Op ratio) was obtained 8 to 10 sec after the preceding response, indicating adaptation to the reinforcement contingency, but in some cases this peak was about 2 sec earlier. One rat exhibited unusually pronounced bursting which seemed to alternate with adaptive temporally spaced responding. Prolonged pauses, observable in the cumulative records, particularly following reinforcement, were attributed to the fact that inter-response times greater than 10 sec were not reinforced, so that as the interval of time since the preceding response became discriminably greater than 10 sec, the probability of a response became small.     

Short-term memory in the pigeon: the previously reinforced response

Eighteen pigeons served in a discrete-trials short-term memory experiment in which the reinforcement probability for a peck on one of two keys depended on the response reinforced on the previous trial: either the probability of reinforcement on a trial was 0.8 for the same response reinforced on the previous trial and was 0.2 for the other response (Group A), or, it was 0 or 0.2 for the same response and 1.0 or 0.8 for the other response (Group B). A correction procedure ensured that over all trials reinforcement was distributed equally across the left and right keys. The optimal strategy was either a winstay, lose-shift strategy (Group A) or a win-shift, lose-stay strategy (Group B). The retention interval, that is the intertrial interval, was varied. The average probability of choosing the optimal alternative reinforced 80% of the time was 0.96, 0.84, and 0.74 after delays of 2.5, 4.0, and 6.0 sec, respectively for Group A, and was 0.87, 0.81, and 0.55 after delays of 2.5, 4.0, and 6.0 sec, respectively, for Group B. This outcome is consistent with the view that behavior approximated the optimal response strategy but only to an extent permitted by a subject's short-term memory for the cue correlated with reinforcement, that is, its own most-recently reinforced response. More generally, this result is consistent with “molecular” analyses of operant behavior, but is inconsistent with traditional “molar” analyses holding that fundamental controlling relations may be discovered by routinely averaging over different local reinforcement contingencies. In the present experiment, the molar results were byproducts of local reinforcement contingencies involving an organism's own recent behavior.     

Reinforcement of least-frequent sequences of choices

When a pigeon's choices between two keys are probabilistically reinforced, as in discrete trial probability learning procedures and in concurrent variable-interval schedules, the bird tends to maximize, or to choose the alternative with the higher probability of reinforcement. In concurrent variable-interval schedules, steady-state matching, which is an approximate equality between the relative frequency of a response and the relative frequency of reinforcement of that response, has previously been obtained only as a consequence of maximizing. In the present experiment, maximizing was impossible. A choice of one of two keys was reinforced only if it formed, together with the three preceding choices, the sequence of four successive choices that had occurred least often. This sequence was determined by a Bernoulli-trials process with parameter p. Each of three pigeons matched when p was ½ or ¼. Therefore, steady-state matching by individual birds is not always a consequence of maximizing. Choice probability varied between successive reinforcements, and sequential statistics revealed dependencies which were adequately described by a Bernoulli-trials process with p depending on the time since the preceding reinforcement.     

Choice for aperiodic versus periodic ratio schedules: A comparison of concurrent and concurrent-chain procedures

Choice between mixed-ratio schedules, consisting of equiprobable ratios of 1 and 99 responses per reinforcement, and fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement was assessed by two commonly used procedures: concurrent schedules and concurrent-chains schedules. Rats were trained under concurrent fixed-ratio mixed-ratio schedules, in which both ratio schedules were simultaneously available, and under a concurrent-chains schedule, in which access to one of the mutually exclusive ratio schedules comprising the terminal links was contingent on a single “choice” response. The distribution of responses between the two ratio schedules was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent procedure, and the distribution of “choice” responses was taken as the choice proportion under the concurrent-chains procedure. Seven of eight rats displayed systematic choice; of those, each displayed nearly exclusive choice for fixed-ratio 35 to the mixed-ratio schedule under the concurrent procedure, but each displayed nearly exclusive choice for the mixed-ratio schedule to fixed-ratio 35 under the concurrent-chains procedure. Thus, preference for a fixed or a mixed schedule of reinforcement depended on the procedure used to assess preference.     

Probability and delay of reinforcement as factors in discrete-trial choice.

Pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck on the red key always produced a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. The probability of reinforcement for responding on this key varied from .05 to 1.0 in different conditions. A response on the green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a possible reinforcer, with the probability of reinforcement ranging from .25 to 1.0 in different conditions. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices. The purpose of these adjustments was to estimate an indifference point, or a delay that resulted in a subject's choosing each alternative about equally often. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was five times higher on the green key, the green-key delay averaged about 12 s at the indifference point. In conditions where the probability of reinforcement was twice as high on the green key, the green-key delay at the indifference point was about 8 s with high probabilities and about 6 s with low probabilities. An analysis based on these results and those from studies on delay of reinforcement suggests that pigeons' choices are relatively insensitive to variations in the probability of reinforcement between .2 and 1.0, but quite sensitive to variations in probability between .2 and 0.     

Response acquisition under targeted percentile schedules: a continuing quandary for molar models of operant behavior.

The number of responses rats made in a "run" of consecutive left-lever presses, prior to a trial-ending right-lever press, was differentiated using a targeted percentile procedure. Under the nondifferential baseline, reinforcement was provided with a probability of .33 at the end of a trial, irrespective of the run on that trial. Most of the 30 subjects made short runs under these conditions, with the mean for the group around three. A targeted percentile schedule was next used to differentiate run length around the target value of 12. The current run was reinforced if it was nearer the target than 67% of those runs in the last 24 trials that were on the same side of the target as the current run. Programming reinforcement in this way held overall reinforcement probability per trial constant at .33 while providing reinforcement differentially with respect to runs more closely approximating the target of 12. The mean run for the group under this procedure increased to approximately 10. Runs approaching the target length were acquired even though differentiated responding produced the same probability of reinforcement per trial, decreased the probability of reinforcement per response, did not increase overall reinforcement rate, and generally substantially reduced it (i.e., in only a few instances did response rate increase sufficiently to compensate for the increase in the number of responses per trial). Models of behavior predicated solely on molar reinforcement contingencies all predict that runs should remain short throughout this experiment, because such runs promote both the most frequent reinforcement and the greatest reinforcement per press. To the contrary, 29 of 30 subjects emitted runs in the vicinity of the target, driving down reinforcement rate while greatly increasing the number of presses per pellet. These results illustrate the powerful effects of local reinforcement contingencies in changing behavior, and in doing so underscore a need for more dynamic quantitative formulations of operant behavior to supplement or supplant the currently prevalent static ones.     

Probability learning as a function of momentary reinforcement probability

Pigeons were trained on a probability learning task where the overall reinforcement probability was 0.50 for each response alternative but where the momentary reinforcement probability differed and depended upon the outcome of the preceding trial. In all cases, the maximum reinforcement occurred with a “win-stay, lose-shift” response pattern. When both position and color were relevant cues, the optimal response pattern was learned when the reinforcement probability for repeating the just-reinforced response was 0.80 but not when the probability was 0.65. When only color was relevant, learning occurred much more slowly, and only for subjects trained on large fixed ratio requirements.     

Maximizing present value: A model to explain why moderate response rates obtain on variable-interval schedules

In Phases 1 and 3, two Japanese monkeys responded on a multiple variable-ratio 80 variable-interval X schedule, where the value of X was adjusted to ensure equal between-schedule reinforcement rates. Components strictly alternated following the delivery of a food pellet, and each session ended following 50 components. Phase 2 differed from the others only in that the 50 pellets previously earned during the session were delivered together at session's end. Variable-ratio response rates did not decrease across phases, but variable-interval response rates decreased substantially during the Phase 2 procedure. This rate decrease was attributed to the food-at-session's-end manipulation removing the greater immediacy of reinforcement provided by short interresponse times relative to long interresponse times. Without this time preference for short interresponse times, the variable-interval interresponse-time reinforcement feedback function largely controlled response emission, dictating a response-rate reduction. This result was explained in terms of the economic notion of “maximizing present value.”     

Partial avoidance contingencies: Absolute omission and punishment probabilities

Avoidance contingencies were defined by the absolute probability of the conjunction of responding or not responding with shock or no shock. The “omission” probability (ρ₀₀) is the probability of no response and no shock. The “punishment” probability (ρ₁₁) is the probability of both a response and a shock. The traditional avoidance contingency never omits shock on nonresponse trials (ρ₀₀=0) and never presents shock on response trials (ρ₁₁=0). Rats were trained on a discrete-trial paradigm with no intertrial interval. The first lever response changed an auditory stimulus for the remainder of the trial. Shocks were delivered only at the end of each trial cycle. After initial training under the traditional avoidance contingency, one group of rats experienced changes in omission probability (ρ₀₀>0), holding punishment probability at zero. The second group of rats were studied under different punishment probability values (ρ₁₁>0), holding omission probability at zero. Data from subjects in the omission group looked similar, showing graded decrements in responding with increasing probability of omission. These subjects approximately “matched” their nonresponse frequencies to the programmed probability of shock omission on nonresponse trials, producing a very low and approximately constant conditional probability of shock given no response. Subjects in the punishment group showed different sensitivity to increasing absolute punishment probability. Some subjects decreased responding to low values as punishment probability increased, while others continued to respond at substantial levels even when shock was inevitable on all trials (noncontingent shock schedule). These results confirm an asymmetry between two dimensions of partial avoidance contingencies. When the consequences of not responding included occasional omission of shock, all subjects showed graded sensitivity to changes in omission frequency. When the consequences of responding included occasional shock delivery, some subjects showed graded sensitivity to punishment frequency while others showed control by overall shock frequency as well.     

Choice: Effects of changeover schedules on concurrent performance

The components of concurrent schedules were separated temporally by placing interval schedules on the changeover key. The rates of responding on both the main and changeover keys were examined as a function of the reinforcement rates. In the first experiment, the sensitivity of main-key performance to changing reinforcement rates was inversely related to the temporal separation of components, and changeover performance was monotonically related to the ratio of the reinforcement rates. In the second experiment, when the ratio of the reinforcement rates was scheduled to remain constant while the frequency of reinforcement was varied, changeover performance did not remain constant. A “sampling” interpretation of changeover responding was proposed and subsequently tested in a third experiment where extinction was always scheduled in one component and the frequency of reinforcement was varied in the second component. It was concluded that changeover performance can be interpreted using molar measures of reinforcement and that animals sample activities available to them at rates which are controlled by relative reinforcement rates.     

Bias in self-evaluation: Signal probability effects

Two experiments examined apparent signal probability effects in simple verbal self-reports. After each trial of a delayed matching-to-sample task, young adults pressed either a “yes” or a “no” button to answer a computer-presented query about whether the most recent choice met a point contingency requiring both speed and accuracy. A successful matching-to-sample choice served as the “signal” in a signal-detection analysis of self-reports. Difficulty of matching to sample, and thus signal probability, was manipulated via the number of nonmatching sample and comparison stimuli. In Experiment 1, subjects exhibited a bias (log b) for reporting matching-to-sample success when success was frequent, and no bias or a bias for reporting failure when success was infrequent. Contingencies involving equal conditional probabilities of point consequences for “I succeeded” and “I failed” reports had no systematic effect on this pattern. Experiment 2 found signal probability effects to be evident regardless of whether referent-response difficulty was manipulated in different conditions or within sessions. These findings indicate that apparent signal probability effects in self-report bias that were observed in previous studies probably were not an artifact of contingencies intended to improve self-report accuracy or of the means of manipulating signal probability. The findings support an analogy between simple self-reports and psychophysical judgments and bolster the conclusion of Critchfield (1993) that signal probability effects can influence simple self-reports much as they do reports about external stimuli in psychophysical experiments.