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.     

Visual Reinforcement Signals Interfere with the Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude Manipulations

Three experiments examined the effect of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates. In Experiment 1, rats that received four food pellets responded faster than rats that received one pellet on a variable ratio 30 schedule. However, when the food hopper was illuminated during reinforcer delivery, there was no difference between the rates of response produced by the two magnitudes of reward. In Experiment 2, there was no difference in response rates emitted by rats receiving either one or four pellets of food as reward on a random interval (RI) 60-s schedule. In Experiment 3, rats responding on an RI 30-s schedule did so at a lower rate with four pellets as reinforcement than with one pellet. This effect was abolished by the illumination of the food hopper during reinforcement delivery. These results indicate that the influence of magnitude is obscured by manipulations which signal the delivery of reinforcement.     

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.     

Arousal, changeover responses, and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules that provided concurrent reinforcement in each of two components. In Experiment 1, one component consisted of a variable-interval (VI) 40-s schedule presented with a VI 20-s schedule, and the other a VI 40-s schedule presented with a VI 80-s schedule. After extended training, probe tests measured preference between the stimuli associated with the two 40-s schedules. Probe tests replicated the results of Belke (1992) that showed preference for the 40-s schedule that had been paired with the 80-s schedule. In a second condition, the overall reinforcer rate provided by the two components was equated by adding a signaled VI schedule to the component with the lower reinforcer rate. Probe results were unchanged. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on alternating concurrent VI 30-s VI 60-s schedules. One schedule provided 2-s access to food and the other provided 6-s access. The larger reinforcer magnitude produced higher response rates and was preferred on probe trials. Rate of changeover responding, however, did not differ as a function of reinforcer magnitude. The present results demonstrate that preference on probe trials is not a simple reflection of the pattern of changeover behavior established during training.     

A comparison of delays and ratio requirements in self-control choice.

In a discrete-trial procedure, pigeons could choose between 2-s and 6-s access to grain by making a single key peck. In Phase 1, the pigeons obtained both reinforcers by responding on fixed-ratio schedules. In Phase 2, they received both reinforcers after simple delays, arranged by fixed-time schedules, during which no responses were required. In Phase 3, the 2-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-time schedule and the 6-s reinforcer was available through a fixed-ratio schedule. In all conditions, the size of the delay or ratio leading to the 6-s reinforcer was systematically increased or decreased several times each session, permitting estimation of an "indifference point," the schedule size at which a subject chose each alternative equally often. By varying the size of the schedule for the 2-s reinforcer across conditions, several such indifference points were obtained from both fixed-time conditions and fixed-ratio conditions. The resulting "indifference curves" from fixed-time conditions and from fixed-ratio conditions were similar in shape, and they suggested that a hyperbolic equation describes the relation between ratio size and reinforcement value as well as the relation between reinforcer delay and its reinforcement value. The results from Phase 3 showed that subjects chose fixed-time schedules over fixed-ratio schedules that generated the same average times between a choice response and reinforcement.     

Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.     

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.     

Extended pausing by humans on multiple fixed-ratio schedules with varied reinforcer magnitude and response requirements

We conducted three experiments to reproduce and extend Perone and Courtney's (1992) study of pausing at the beginning of fixed-ratio schedules. In a multiple schedule with unequal amounts of food across two components, they found that pigeons paused longest in the component associated with the smaller amount of food (the lean component), but only when it was preceded by the rich component. In our studies, adults with mild intellectual disabilities responded on a touch-sensitive computer monitor to produce money. In Experiment 1, the multiple-schedule components differed in both response requirement and reinforcer magnitude (i.e., the rich component required fewer responses and produced more money than the lean component). Effects shown with pigeons were reproduced in all 7 participants. In Experiment 2, we removed the stimuli that signaled the two schedule components, and participants' extended pausing was eliminated. In Experiment 3, to assess sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude versus fixed-ratio size, we presented conditions with equal ratio sizes but disparate magnitudes and conditions with equal magnitudes but disparate ratio sizes. Sensitivity to these manipulations was idiosyncratic. The present experiments obtained schedule control in verbally competent human participants and, despite procedural differences, we reproduced findings with animal participants. We showed that pausing is jointly determined by past conditions of reinforcement and stimuli correlated with upcoming conditions.     

Motivational control of impulsive behavior interacts with choice opportunities

Impulsive behavior has been investigated through choice between a smaller/immediate reinforcer and a larger/delayed reinforcer, or through performance on a differential reinforcement of low rate (DRL) schedule. In the present study, we investigated a methodological divergence between these two procedures: in the former procedure, delay is a consequence of the subject's own choice, whereas in the later procedure, subjects are explicitly reinforced for delaying a response. In Experiment 1, 7 rats maintained at 80% of their free-feeding weights showed poorer efficiency of lever-pressing responses on a DRL 30-s schedule than when they were maintained at 90% of free-feeding weight. In Experiment 2, 16 rats were subjected to a concurrent chain schedule: the initial link was concurrent fixed ratio 1 fixed ratio 1, and each of these alternatives was followed by a short-DRL requirement with a one pellet reinforcer or a long-DRL requirement with a three pellet reinforcer. In one block of trials, rats were not allowed to choose between the two terminal links (forced-choice), whereas in the other block of trials rats were allowed to choose freely between the two terminal links (free-choice). Compared with rats maintained at 95% of their free-feeding weights, rats maintained at 80% of their free-feeding weights showed poorer efficiency in the terminal links’ DRL schedule performance (just as in Experiment 1), but this difference was shown only in the forced-choice blocks. These results indicate that motivational control of DRL schedule performance interacts with type of choice-making opportunity and highlight the direct comparison of motivational control of impulsive choice and DRL schedule performance.     

Some effects of response-correlated increases in reinforcer magnitude on human behavior

After training under short or long fixed-interval schedules, humans responded under a modified fixed-interval schedule in which magnitude of reinforcement (X or 2X) was minimally correlated with response frequency. Response frequencies that equaled or exceeded a minimum response criterion were followed by the larger reinforcer at the end of the interval; otherwise, the smaller reinforcer was delivered. The modified schedule alternated with the baseline schedule across conditions. In a control condition, the reinforcer magnitudes produced by control subjects were yoked to those of experimental subjects. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding. In addition to the baseline and modified fixed-interval schedules used in Experiment 1, subjects in Experiment 2 also responded under a second modified fixed-interval contingency in which increases in reinforcer magnitude were more highly correlated with response frequency. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding under both procedures. Direct comparison of these two procedures showed that the high-correlation procedure produced greater increases in responding than did the low-correlation procedure.     

Effects of reinforcer consumption and magnitude on response rates during noncontingent reinforcement

Results of previous research on the effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) have been inconsistent when magnitude of reinforcement was manipulated. We attempted to clarify the influence of NCR magnitude by including additional controls. In Study 1, we examined the effects of reinforcer consumption time by comparing the same magnitude of NCR when session time was and was not corrected to account for reinforcer consumption. Lower response rates were observed when session time was not corrected, indicating that reinforcer consumption can suppress response rates. In Study 2, we first selected varying reinforcer magnitudes (small, medium, and large) on the basis of corrected response rates observed during a contingent reinforcement condition and then compared the effects of these magnitudes during NCR. One participant exhibited lower response rates when large-magnitude reinforcers were delivered; the other ceased responding altogether even when small-magnitude reinforcers were delivered. We also compared the effects of the same NCR magnitude (medium) during 10-min and 30-min sessions. Lower response rates were observed during 30-min sessions, indicating that the number of reinforcers consumed across a session can have the same effect as the number consumed per reinforcer delivery. These findings indicate that, even when response rate is corrected to account for reinforcer consumption, larger magnitudes of NCR (defined on either a per-delivery or per-session basis) result in lower response rates than do smaller magnitudes.     

Within-subject testing of the signaled-reinforcement effect on operant responding as measured by response rate and resistance to change

Response rates under random-interval schedules are lower when a brief (500 ms) signal accompanies reinforcement than when there is no signal. The present study examined this signaled-reinforcement effect and its relation to resistance to change. In Experiment 1, rats responded on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule, with signaled reinforcement in only one component. Response resistance to alternative reinforcement, prefeeding, and extinction was compared between these components. Lower response rates, and greater resistance to change, occurred in the component with the reinforcement signal. In Experiment 2, response rates and resistance to change were compared after training on a multiple random-interval 60-s random-interval 60-s schedule in which reinforcer delivery was unsignaled in one component and a response-produced uncorrelated stimulus was presented in the other component. Higher response rates and greater resistance to change occurred with the uncorrelated stimulus. These results highlight the significance of considering the effects of an uncorrelated signal when used as a control condition, and challenge accounts of resistance to change that depend solely on reinforcer rate.     

Similar consumption and responding across single and multiple sources of drug

Two experiments were conducted to assess whether total response output and total consumption would be similar when drugs are available from single and multiple sources of reinforcement, as predicted by behavioral economics. In Experiment 1, cigarette-deprived smokers were exposed to a concurrent-chains schedule in which equal fixed-ratio schedules served as the initial links, and different reinforcer magnitudes (i.e., number of cigarette puffs) were arranged across alternatives. After the session, obtained unit price was calculated and imposed in the next session when a different number of puffs was available according to a single fixed-ratio schedule. Thus, the unit price at which cigarette puffs could be earned was yoked within subjects across the single and concurrent-chains schedules. When plotted as a function of unit price, similar consumption and response rates were usually obtained across these schedules. Experiment 2 addressed a weakness of Experiment 1, namely, that responding was allocated exclusively to the larger reinforcer magnitude in concurrent-chains conditions, and therefore this schedule may have functioned as a single schedule. In Experiment 2, subjects were instructed to alternate responding between the two alternative schedules. Instructions produced approximately equal response allocation between the two alternatives. Again, similar consumption and response rates were observed across the single and instructed concurrent-chains schedules. These findings are discussed in the context of direct effects and behavioral economics perspectives of drug self-administration.     

Effects of unsignaled delay of reinforcement on preference and resistance to change

In Phase 1, pigeons were trained on a concurrent chain in which a 3-s unsignaled delay of reinforcement was imposed on responding in a terminal link in some conditions. Preference for that terminal link was always reduced in comparison with conditions in which there was no delay, substantially so for 3 of the 4 pigeons. In Phase 2, pigeons responded in a two-component multiple schedule. The scheduled rates of reinforcement were equal, but a 3-s unsignaled delay was imposed in one component. Resistance of responding to prefeeding and extinction was reduced in the delay component for the same 3 subjects for which the data had shown strong effects of delay on preference. Systematic observation revealed differences in response topography. In the delay component, subjects oriented more closely to the key and responses were less forceful compared with the no-delay component. Our results give further evidence that preference and resistance to change covary within subjects. However, they challenge the premise that the critical determiners of preference (i.e., terminal-link value) and resistance to change (behavioral mass) may be quantified purely in terms of stimulus—reinforcer relations.     

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.     

Within-session rates of responding when reinforcer magnitude is changed within the session

In the present experiment, the authors investigated the idea that within-session changes in operant response rates occur because subjects sensitize and then habituate to the reinforcer. If that is true, then altering an aspect of the reinforcer within the session should alter the observed within-session responding. The authors tested that idea by having rats press a lever for 2 food-pellet reinforcers delivered by a variable-interval 120-s schedule during 60-min baseline sessions. In treatment conditions, the magnitude of the reinforcer was halved (1 pellet) or doubled (4 pellets) 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 min into the session. That magnitude of reinforcement then remained in effect for the rest of the session. Altering reinforcer magnitude altered the rates of responding within the session in a fashion consistent with the habituation explanation, that is, response rates increased, relative to baseline, when the magnitude of reinforcement was increased. They decreased when the magnitude was decreased. Those results were seemingly inconsistent with the competing idea that within-session decreases in responding rates are produced by satiation.     

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 Rate of Reinforcement and Rate of Change on Choice Behaviour in Transition

In two experiments with pigeons, a single variable-interval schedule assigned reinforcers to two response keys on a percentage basis. The percentage of reinforcers assigned to each key was changed every few sessions, and subjects' choice responses were recorded before and after each change. In Experiment 1, the overall rate of reinforcement was varied across conditions. The pigeons' choice responses adapted more quickly to a change in the reinforcement percentages when the overall reinforcement rates were higher, but acquisition rates varied by only about a factor of 3, whereas reinforcement rates were varied by about a factor of 9. In Experiment 2, the reinforcement percentages changed about every 8 sessions in Phases 1 and 3, but every 1 or 2 sessions in Phase 2. Pigeons' choice responses adapted to a change in reinforcement percentages more quickly in Phase 2 than in Phases 1 and 3. The results from both experiments pose difficulties for several prominent models of transitional choice behaviour. The results suggest that each successive reinforcer has more impact on a subject's subsequent choice behaviour when the overall rate of reinforcement is lower and when the reinforcement contingencies have changed frequently in the recent past.     

Dishabituation produces interactions during multiple schedules

McSweeney and Weatherly (1998) argued that differential habituation to the reinforcer contributes to the behavioral interactions observed during multiple schedules. The present experiment confirmed that introducing dishabituators into one component of a multiple schedule increases response rate in the other, constant, component. During baseline, pigeons and rats responded on multiple variable interval 30-s variable interval 30-s schedules. During experimental conditions, subjects responded on the same schedule except that a dishabituating stimulus (manipulation of a light) was also presented randomly during one of the components. Constant-component responding was faster during the experimental than during the baseline conditions. This difference in responding grew larger across the session. The within-session pattern of responding was similar for the two components of each multiple schedule. Qualitatively similar results were observed for rats and pigeons. These results suggest that behavioral interactions sometimes arise from a change in reinforcer effectiveness between the baseline and experimental phases of the experiment, rather than from an assessment of reinforcer relativity (a comparison of reinforcers delivered during the two components in the experimental phase). Behavioral contrast and induction are sometimes produced by similar factors.     

Income maximizing on concurrent ratio-interval schedules of reinforcement

Three experiments examined the effect of food availability on pigeons' choice behavior under concurrent schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 3 pigeons earned their daily food ration by choosing, in 30-min sessions, between concurrent variable-ratio 30 variable-interval 40-s schedules. Food presentations during both schedules lasted 2 or 12 s, depending upon the condition. Relative variable-ratio response rate was inversely related to hopper duration. In Experiment 2, 4 pigeons received their daily feeding by responding on the same schedule pair as in Experiment 1 (with 4-s food presentations) in sessions that varied in length from 10 to 30 min, depending on the condition. The length of a vertical slit projected on a response key increased with time so that “passage of time” might be more easily discriminable. As session duration decreased, relative variable-ratio response rate increased. In Experiment 3, 4 pigeons chose between two variable-interval 40-s schedules. One schedule operated without regard to the schedule selected, whereas the other operated only when the subject responded in its presence (dependent). Although these schedules had the same feedback function, preference for the dependent variable interval increased as session duration decreased from 30 to 10 min. The preference changes in these studies reveal the operation of an income-maximizing process in choice.