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.     

On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules

Four experiments, each using the same six pigeons, investigated the effects of varying component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used unequal component durations in which one component was five times the duration of the other, and the shorter component was varied over conditions from 120 seconds to 5 seconds. The schedules were varied over five values for each pair of component durations. Sensitivity to reinforcement rate changes was the same at all component durations. In Experiment 2, both component durations were 5 seconds, and the schedules were again varied using both one and two response keys. Sensitivity to reinforcement was not different from the values found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, various manipulations, including body-weight changes, reinforcer duration changes, blackouts, hopper lights correlated with keylights, and overall reinforcement rate changes were carried out. No reliable increase in reinforcement sensitivity resulted from any manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 4, reinforcement rates in the two components were kept constant and unequal, and the component durations were varied. Shorter components produced significantly increased response rates normally in the higher reinforcement rate component, but schedule reversals at short component durations eliminated the response rate increases. The effects of component duration on multiple schedule performance cannot be interpreted as changing sensitivity to reinforcement nor to changing bias.     

Successive independence and behavioral contrast in a closed economy.

Two pigeons had access to multiple concurrent schedules of reinforcement for 24 hours per day in their home cages. The variable-interval schedules comprising the multiple concurrent schedules were varied across 16 conditions. In three sets of conditions, one schedule was varied while its concurrent alternative and the concurrent schedules in the other component were held constant. Behavioral contrast was observed; that is, as the rate of reinforcement arranged by the varied schedule decreased, response rates on the constant schedules typically increased. These conditions formed part of two larger sets of conditions in which the concurrent schedules in one multiple-schedule component remained constant while the concurrent schedules in the other component were varied. Successive independence was found, in that behavior allocation during the constant component did not vary as a function of the reinforcer ratios in the varied component. Successive independence between components in multiple concurrent schedules is a robust result that occurs in closed economies and under conditions that promote behavioral contrast.     

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.     

The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Behavioral contrast and response independent reinforcement

Four pigeons received pre-training that included presentation of the reinforcer independently of behavior and then baseline training on a variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. With the introduction of a multiple schedule, in which the first stimulus was associated with a response contingent and a second stimulus with a response independent, 1-min variable-interval schedule, a reduction in response rate was obtained in the second component, which was not accompanied by a behavioral contrast effect in the first component. A further three pigeons were given the same pre-training and baseline training before the introduction of an otherwise identical multiple schedule, in which no reinforcement occured in the second component. Behavioral contrast was obtained from all three subjects. The results indicated that under conditions of constant reinforcement density a reduction in responding is not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of behavioral contrast.     

Effects of reinforcer magnitude on responding under differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of rats and pigeons

Experiment I investigated the effects of reinforcer magnitude on differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule performance in three phases. In Phase 1, two groups of rats (n = 6 and 5) responded under a DRI. 72-s schedule with reinforcer magnitudes of either 30 or 300 microl of water. After acquisition, the water amounts were reversed for each rat. In Phase 2, the effects of the same reinforcer magnitudes on DRL 18-s schedule performance were examined across conditions. In Phase 3, each rat responded unider a DR1. 18-s schedule in which the water amotnts alternated between 30 and 300 microl daily. Throughout each phase of Experiment 1, the larger reinforcer magnitude resulted in higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates. The peak of the interresponse-time distributions was at a lower value tinder the larger reinforcer magnitude. In Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under a DRL 20-s schedule in which reinforcer magnitude (1-s or 6-s access to grain) varied iron session to session. Higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates occurred tinder the longer hopper duration. These results demonstrate that larger reinforcer magnitudes engender less efficient DRL schedule performance in both rats and pigeons, and when reinforcer magnitude was held constant between sessions or was varied daily. The present results are consistent with previous research demonstrating a decrease in efficiency as a function of increased reinforcer magnituide tinder procedures that require a period of time without a specified response. These findings also support the claim that DRI. schedule performance is not governed solely by a timing process.     

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.     

Choice behavior in a discrete-trial concurrent VI-VR: A test of maximizing theories of matching

Rats were trained on a discrete-trial procedure in which one alternative (VR) was correlated with a constant probability of reinforcement while the other was correlated with a VI schedule which ran during the intertrial intervals and held the scheduled reinforcer until they were obtained by the next VI response. Relative reinforcement rate was varied in series of conditions in which the VR schedule was varied and in series in which the VI was varied. Choice behavior was described well by the generalized matching law, although moderate undermatching occurred for all subjects. Contrary to the predictions of molar maximizing (optimality) theories, there was no consistent bias in favor of the ratio alternative, and the sensitivity to reinforcement allocation was not systematically affected by whether the ratio or interval schedule was varied. The results were also contrary to momentary maximizing accounts, as there was no correspondence between the probability of a changeover to the VI behavior and the time since the last response to the VI alternative. Neither variety of maximizing theory appears to provide a general explanation of matching in concurrent schedules.     

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.     

IMPULSIVITY IN STUDENTS WITH SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF REINFORCER RATE,DELAY, AND QUALITY

We conducted two studies extending basic matching research on self-control and impulsivity to the investigation of choices of students diagnosed as seriously emotionally disturbed. In Study 1 we examined the interaction between unequal rates of reinforcement and equal versus unequal delays to reinforcer access on performance of concurrently available sets of math problems. The results of a reversal design showed that when delays to reinforcer access were the same for both response alternatives, the time allocated to each was approximately proportional to obtained reinforcement. When the delays to reinforcer access differed between the response alternatives, there was a bias toward the response alternative and schedule with the lower delays, suggesting impulsivity (i.e., immediate reinforcer access overrode the effects of rate of reinforcement). In Study 2 we examined the interactive effects of reinforcer rate, quality, and delay. Conditions involving delayed access to the high-quality reinforcers on the rich schedule (with immediate access to low-quality reinforcers earned on the lean schedule) were alternated with immediate access to low-quality reinforcers on the rich schedule (with delayed access to high-quality reinforcers on the lean schedule) using a reversal design. With 1 student, reinforcer quality overrode the effects of both reinforcer rate and delay to reinforcer access. The other student tended to respond exclusively to the alternative associated with immediate access to reinforcers. The studies demonstrate a methodology based on matching theory for determining influential dimensions of reinforcers governing individuals' choices.     

Behavioral control by the response–reinforcer correlation

Using a discrete‐trials procedure, two experiments examined the effects of response–reinforcer correlations on responding while controlling molecular variables that operated at the moment of reinforcer delivery (e.g., response–reinforcer temporal contiguity, interresponse times preceding reinforcement). Each trial consisted of three successive components: Response, Timeout, and Reinforcement, with the duration of each component held constant. The correlation between the number of responses in the Response component and reinforcer deliveries in the Reinforcement component was varied. In the Positive‐correlation condition, a larger number of responses in the Response component programmed a higher reinforcement rate (Experiment 1) or a shorter time to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component. Although programmed in this way, the actual reinforcer delivery was dependent on, and occurred immediately after, a response in the Reinforcement component. In the Zero‐correlation condition, the programmed rates of reinforcement (Experiment 1) or the times to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component of each trial were yoked to those in the preceding Positive‐correlation condition. Responding in the Response component was higher in the Positive‐ than in the Zero‐correlation condition, without systematic changes in molecular variables. The results suggest that the response–reinforcer correlation can be a controlling variable of behavior.     

Observing behavior: effects of rate and magnitude of primary reinforcement

Four experiments examined the free-operant observing behavior of rats. In Experiment 1, observing was a bitonic function of random-ratio schedule requirements for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 2, decreases in the magnitude of the primary reinforcer decreased observing. Experiment 3 examined observing when a random-ratio schedule or a yoked random-time schedule of primary reinforcement was in effect across conditions. Removing the response requirement for the primary reinforcer increased observing, suggesting that the effects of the random-ratio schedule in Experiment 1 likely were due to an interaction between observing and responding for the primary reinforcer. In Experiment 4, decreasing the rate of primary reinforcement by increasing the duration of a random-time schedule decreased observing monotonically. Overall, these results suggest that observing decreases with decreases in the rate or magnitude of the primary reinforcer, but that behavior related to the primary reinforcer can affect observing and potentially affect measurement of conditioned reinforcing value.     

Behavioral contrast as a function of the temporal location of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on a multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule of reinforcement. One component was then changed to a variation of a fixed-interval schedule in which the same rate of reinforcement was obtained as previously but the location of the reinforcer was fixed within the component. The effects of different temporal locations were compared. An increase in response rate for the unchanged variable-interval component (behavioral contrast) occurred when the reinforcer was located in the middle or at the end of the FI component, but response suppression occurred when it was located at the beginning of the component. The pattern of results cannot be explained by any previous theories of contrast. The overall response rates, and the pattern of local rates within the components, were consistent with the hypothesis that the major determinant of the contrast effect was the transition to a lower reinforcement rate following the unchanged component.     

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.     

Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules

In multiple schedules of reinforcement, ratios of responses in successive components are relatively insensitive to ratios of obtained reinforcers. An analysis is proposed that attributes changes in absolute response rates to concurrent interactions between programmed reinforcement and extraneous reinforcement in other components. The analysis predicts that ratios of responses in successive components vary with reinforcer ratios, qualified by a term describing the reinforcement context, that is, programmed and extraneous reinforcers. Two main predictions from the analysis were confirmed in an experiment in which pigeons' responses were reinforced in the components of a multiple schedule and analog extraneous reinforcement was scheduled for an alternative response in each component. Sensitivity of response and time ratios to reinforcer ratios in the multiple schedules varied as a function of the rate of extraneous reinforcers. Bias towards responding in one component of the multiple schedule varied as an inverse function of the ratios of extraneous reinforcer rate in the two components. The data from this and previous studies of multiple-concurrent performance were accurately predicted by our analysis and supported our contention that the allocation of behavior in multiple-schedule components depends on the relative values of concurrently-available reinforcers within each component.