Effects of reinforcement amount on attack induced under a fixed-interval schedule in pigeons

Key pecking by pigeons was maintained on a chained fixed-interval 4-min (12-min for 1 subject) fixed-ratio 1 schedule of food presentation. Attacks toward a restrained and protected conspecific were recorded. In the first experiment, the amount of food presented per interval was manipulated across phases by varying the number of fixed ratios required in the terminal link of the chain. Measures of attack for all pigeons during the fixed-interval component increased monotonically as a function of food amount. In the second experiment, two different food amounts alternated within each experimental session under a multiple schedule. For both pigeons in this experiment, measures of attack were higher during the component that delivered the larger food amount per interval. The differences in levels of attack induced by the two food amounts in Experiment 2, however, were not as great as in Experiment 1; apparently this was because attack during the first interval of each component was controlled in part (P-5626) or entirely (P-7848) by the reinforcement amount delivered at the end of the previous component. Attack was also a function of the location of the interfood interval within the session. For both pigeons, attack tended to decrease throughout the session. The results of both experiments suggest that attack is an increasing function of reinforcement amount under fixed-interval schedules, but that this function may be influenced by the manner in which reinforcement amount is manipulated, by the duration of the interfood interval, and by the location of the interfood interval within the experimental session. In general, these results are compatible with theories of induced attack and other schedule-induced behavior that emphasize aversive after-effects of reinforcement presentation.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of signaled-delayed reinforcement: effects of delay-signal duration.

Two experiments with pigeons examined the relation of the duration of a signal for delay ("delay signal") to rates of key pecking. The first employed a multiple schedule comprised of two components with equal variable-interval 60-s schedules of 27-s delayed food reinforcement. In one component, a short (0.5-s) delay signal, presented immediately following the key peck that began the delay, was increased in duration across phases; in the second component the delay signal initially was equal to the length of the programmed delay (27 s) and was decreased across phases. Response rates prior to delays were an increasing function of delay-signal duration. As the delay signal was decreased in duration, response rates were generally higher than those obtained under identical delay-signal durations as the signal was increased in duration. In Experiment 2 a single variable-interval 60-s schedule of 27-s delayed reinforcement was used. Delay-signal durations were again increased gradually across phases. As in Experiment 1, response rates increased as the delay-signal duration was increased. Following the phase during which the signal lasted the entire delay, shorter delay-signal-duration conditions were introduced abruptly, rather than gradually as in Experiment 1, to determine whether the gradual shortening of the delay signal accounted for the differences observed in response rates under identical delay-signal conditions in Experiment 1. Response rates obtained during the second exposures to the conditions with shorter signals were higher than those observed under identical conditions as the signal duration was increased, as in Experiment 1. In both experiments, rates and patterns of responding during delays varied greatly across subjects and were not systematically related to delay-signal durations. The effects of the delay signal may be related to the signal's role as a discriminative stimulus for adventitiously reinforced intradelay behavior, or the delay signal may have served as a conditioned reinforcer by virtue of the temporal relation between it and presentation of food.     

Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled, and completely signaled delays to reinforcement

In Experiment 1, three pigeons' key pecking was maintained under a variable-interval 60-s schedule of food reinforcement. A 1-s unsignaled nonresetting delay to reinforcement was then added. Rates decreased and stabilized at values below those observed under immediate-reinforcement conditions. A brief stimulus change (key lit red for 0.5 s) was then arranged to follow immediately the peck that began the delay. Response rates quickly returned to baseline levels. Subsequently, rates near baseline levels were maintained with briefly signaled delays of 3 and 9 s. When a 27-s briefly signaled delay was instituted, response rates decreased to low levels. In Experiment 2, four pigeons' responding was first maintained under a multiple variable-interval 60-s (green key) variable-interval 60-s (red key) schedule. Response rates in both components fell to low levels when a 3-s unsignaled delay was added. In the first component delays were then briefly signaled in the same manner as Experiment 1, and in the second component they were signaled with a change in key color that remained until food was delivered. Response rates increased to near baseline levels in both components, and remained near baseline when the delays in both components were lengthened to 9 s. When delays were lengthened to 27 s, response rates fell to low levels in the briefly signaled delay component for three of four pigeons while remaining at or near baseline in the completely signaled delay component. In Experiment 3, low response rates under a 9-s unsignaled delay to reinforcement (tandem variable-interval 60 s fixed-time 9 s) increased when the delay was briefly signaled. The role of the brief stimulus as conditioned reinforcement may be a function of its temporal relation to food, and thus may be related to the eliciting function of the stimulus.     

Additional-delay schedules: A continuum of temporal contingencies by varying food delay

Pigeons performed on discrete-trial, temporally defined schedules in which the food delay (D) was adjusted according to the latency of the key peck (X) and two schedule parameters (t and A). The schedule function was D = A(t − X), where D is the experienced delay between a response and a reinforcer. The schedule parameter t is the maximum value below which the present contingencies occur. A is the additional delay to reinforcement for each second the response latency is shorter than the t value. When A = 0 s, the schedule is a continuous reinforcement schedule with immediate reinforcement. When A = 1 s, the schedule is a conjunctive fixed-ratio 1 fixed-time t-s schedule. When A approaches infinity, the schedule becomes a differential reinforcement of long latency schedule. The latencies for subjects with t = 10 s and t = 30 s were observed with the present schedules having seven values for A between 0 s and 11 s. In addition, the latencies for subjects for which t = 30 s were observed at an A value of 31 s to 41 s. As the A value increased, the latencies approached the t value for subjects for which t = 10 s. The latencies for 30-s-t subjects did not approach t, even when the A value was 41 s. The latencies for 10-s-t subjects at 11-s A value were longer than those under yoked conditions having exactly the same delays/interreinforcement intervals. These results demonstrated a continuum of latency related to the schedule continuum (value of A) at a small t value.     

Self-control in pigeons under the Mischel paradigm

Walter Mischel studied self-control in preschool children in the following manner: if the child waited for an interval to end, he or she received the more preferred of two reinforcers; if the child responded to terminate the interval by ringing a bell, the less preferred reinforcer was given. We used an analogous procedure to study self-control in pigeons: if the bird waited for a trial to end, it received the more preferred reinforcer; if the bird terminated the trial by pecking a key, the less preferred reinforcer was given. We explored the effects on self-control of a number of variables analogous to those studied by Mischel and co-workers, e.g., presence versus absence of reinforcers, of alternative responses, and of stimuli during the wait interval; prior experience of the subjects; and test paradigm. The results obtained with pigeons paralleled the results obtained by Mischel with human children.     

Conjoint schedules of timeout deletion in pigeons.

This experiment attempted to bring behavior under joint control of two distinct contingencies, one that provided food and a second that extended the periods during which that food was available. Pigeons' responses on each of two keys were reinforced according to a single random-interval schedule of food presentation except during signaled timeout periods during which the schedule was temporarily disabled. By means of a conjoint schedule, responses on the initially less preferred key not only produced food but also canceled impending timeouts. When behavior came to predominate on this conjoint alternative, the consequences of responding on the two keys were reversed. Responding in 3 of 4 pigeons proved sensitive to the conjoint scheduled consequences, as evidenced by systematic shifts in response rates favoring the conjoint key. In 2 of these 3 pigeons, sensitivity to the conjoint contingency was evident under time-in:timeout ratios of 2:1 (time-in = 120 s, timeout = 60 s) and 1:5 (time-in = 30 s, timeout = 150 s), whereas for the other pigeon preference for the conjoint key was observed only under the latter sequence of conditions. There was only weak evidence of control by the conjoint scheduled consequences in the 4th subject, despite extended training and forced exposure to the conjoint alternative. The overall pattern of results is consistent with studies of timeout avoidance but also shares features in common with positively reinforced behavior.     

A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on either a variable-interval 60-second schedule, or on a schedule that differentially reinforced responses that were spaced at least 20 seconds apart. The birds were then exposed to several durations of reinforcement delay, with comparisons between signaled and unsignaled delays. Although unsignaled delays of 5 and 10 seconds produced large decreases in response rate, signaled delays of up to 10 seconds produced only moderate decreases in response rates. In addition, some subjects responded more rapidly with a .5 or 1.0 second duration of unsignaled delay than with immediate reinforcement. These response rate changes occurred regardless of whether the rate of reinforcement concomitantly decreased or increased.     

Interresponse-time shaping by variable-interval-like interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies

The interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies and distributions of interreinforcement intervals characteristic of certain variable-interval schedules were mimicked by reinforcing each key peck with a probability equal to the duration of the interresponse time it terminated, divided by the scheduled mean interreinforcement interval. The interresponse-time reinforcement contingency was then eliminated by basing the probability of reinforcement on the fifth interresponse time preceding the key peck. Even though distributions of interreinforcement intervals were unaffected by this manipulation, response rates consistently increased. A second experiment replicated this effect and showed it to combine additively with that of mean reinforcement rate. These results provide strong support for the contention that current analyses of variable-interval response rates that ignore the inherent interresponse-time reinforcement contingency may be seriously in error.     

Responding during reinforcement delay in a self-control paradigm.

Eight pigeons chose between a small, immediate reinforcer and a large, increasingly delayed reinforcer. Responding during the large-reinforcer delays was examined. During large-reinforcer delays, pecks on one key produced the small, immediate reinforcer; pecks on the other key had no effect. Thus, a pigeon could reverse its initial choice of the large, delayed reinforcer, or it could maintain its original choice. Pigeons that made a relatively high number of initial large-reinforcer choices tended to maintain these choices, and those pigeons that actually received a relatively high number of large reinforcers, tended to respond more frequently on the ineffective key during the delay periods. The findings suggest that some previous studies of self-control training in pigeons may have resulted in increased self-control partially due to a lack of opportunity for the pigeons to change their choices.     

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.     

Contingency and stimulus change in chained schedules of reinforcement

Higher rates of pecking were maintained by pigeons in the middle component of three-component chained fixed-interval schedules than in that component of corresponding multiple schedules (two extinction components followed by a fixed-interval component). This rate difference did not occur in equivalent tandem and mixed schedules, in which a single stimulus was correlated with the three components. The higher rates in components of chained schedules demonstrate a reinforcing effect of the stimulus correlated with the next component; the acquired functions of this stimulus make the vocabulary of conditioned reinforcement appropriate. Problems in defining conditioned reinforcement arise not from difficulties in demonstrating reinforcing effects but from disagreements about which experimental operations allow such reinforcing effects to be called conditioned.     

Key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of briefly signaled delayed reinforcement: effects of variable-interval value.

Key pecking of 4 pigeons was maintained under a multiple variable-interval 20-s variable-interval 120-s schedule of food reinforcement. When rates of key pecking were stable, a 5-s unsignaled, nonresetting delay to reinforcement separated the first peck after an interval elapsed from reinforcement in both components. Rates of pecking decreased substantially in both components. When rates were stable, the situation was changed such that the peck that began the 5-s delay also changed the color of the keylight for 0.5 s (i.e., the delay was briefly signaled). Rates increased to near-immediate reinforcement levels. In subsequent conditions, delays of 10 and 20 s, still briefly signaled, were tested. Although rates of key pecking during the component with the variable-interval 120-s schedule did not change appreciably across conditions, rates during the variable-interval 20-s component decreased greatly in 1 pigeon at the 10-s delay and decreased in all pigeons at the 20-s delay. In a control condition, the variable-interval 20-s schedule with 20-s delays was changed to a variable-interval 35-s schedule with 5-s delays, thus equating nominal rates of reinforcement. Rates of pecking increased to baseline levels. Rates of pecking, then, depended on the value of the briefly signaled delay relative to the programmed interfood times, rather than on the absolute delay value. These results are discussed in terms of similar findings in the literature on conditioned reinforcement, delayed matching to sample, and classical conditioning.     

Automaintenance without stimulus-change reinforcement: Temporal control of key pecks

Yoked pairs of experimentally naive pigeons were exposed to a modified autoshaping procedure in which key pecking by the leader birds postponed both keylight termination and access to grain for the leader and the follower bird. Key pecking developed and was maintained in all birds and continued through two reversals of roles in the yoked procedure. Although temporal control developed more slowly in follower birds, asymptotic temporal distributions of key pecking were similar for all birds in both leader and follower roles; maximum responding occurred soon after keylight onset and decreased to a minimum prior to reinforcement. Response distributions for both leader and follower birds were described by Killeen's (1975) mathematical model of temporal control. Follower birds received response-independent reinforcement, and the development by these birds of temporal distributions which are minimal immediately prior to reinforcement is without precedent in Pavlovian appetitive conditioning. However, maintenance of key pecking by the leader birds, whose responses postponed both stimulus-change and food reinforcement, supports an interpretation of autoshaped and automaintained key pecking as responding elicited by signaled grain presentation.     

Reinforcement contingencies and signal detection.

Pigeons were trained to discriminate temporal stimuli in a discrete-trial signal-detection procedure. Pecks to one side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to one duration, and pecks to the other side key were reinforced intermittently after exposure to a different duration. In Experiment I, the allocation of reinforcers was varied systematically for correct responses and for errors, using a procedure that controlled the obtained numbers of reinforcers. When reinforcers were allocated symmetrically, the level of discrimination decreased as the proportion of reinforcers for errors increased. When reinforcers were allocated asymmetrically, the decrease in discrimination was less systematic. Bias toward one or the other side key roughly matched the ratio of reinforcers obtained by pecks at those keys, independent of the level of discrimination. In Experiment II, the overall rate of reinforcement for correct responses was varied both within and between experimental conditions. The level of discrimination was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement. The discrimination data of both experiments were interpreted in relation to the contingencies of reinforcement and nonreinforcement, characterized by the average difference in reinforcement probability for correct responses and errors.     

Color preference in pigeons: stimulus intensity and reinforcement contingency effects in the avoidance of blue stimuli.

In a procedure intended to determine color preference in pigeons (which partially replicated Catania, Owens, & von Lossberg, 1983), two keys were illuminated by different colors drawn from a set of amber, red, green, or blue stimuli; this was followed by the presentation of grain when either of the two colors was pecked. The grain was illuminated alternately across trials with the colors presented on the keys. In Experiment 1 the intensity of the color stimuli used was not equalized, whereas in Experiment 2 the intensity of the colors was equalized. The low preference for blue found in Experiment 1, as measured by differential key pecking, was not found in Experiment 2. The discriminability of the intensity-equalized colors was confirmed in Experiment 2a, in which equal-intensity color discrimination problems were presented. In Experiment 3, as in Catania et al. (1983), a response-independent reinforcement schedule was used, but with intensity-equalized colors. In contrast to Experiment 2, very low preference for blue was found here and in Experiment 4, which used a within-subject procedure. These findings suggest that pigeon color preference may be a function of intensity, but all controlling variables have not as yet been identified.     

Substitution effects in a generalized token economy with pigeons

Pigeons made repeated choices between earning and exchanging reinforcer‐specific tokens (green tokens exchangeable for food, red tokens exchangeable for water) and reinforcer‐general tokens (white tokens exchangeable for food or water) in a closed token economy. Food and green food tokens could be earned on one panel; water and red water tokens could be earned on a second panel; white generalized tokens could be earned on either panel. Responses on one key produced tokens according to a fixed‐ratio schedule, whereas responses on a second key produced exchange periods, during which all previously earned tokens could be exchanged for the appropriate commodity. Most conditions were conducted in a closed economy, and pigeons distributed their token allocation in ways that permitted food and water consumption. When the price of all tokens was equal and low, most pigeons preferred the generalized tokens. When token‐production prices were manipulated, pigeons reduced production of the tokens that increased in price while increasing production of the generalized tokens that remained at a fixed price. The latter is consistent with a substitution effect: Generalized tokens increased and were exchanged for the more expensive reinforcer. When food and water were made freely available outside the session, token production and exchange was sharply reduced but was not eliminated, even in conditions when it no longer produced tokens. The results join with other recent data in showing sustained generalized functions of token reinforcers, and demonstrate the utility of token‐economic methods for assessing demand for and substitution among multiple commodities in a laboratory context.     

Effects Of Histories Of Differential Reinforcement Of Response Rate On Variable-interval Responding

Three pigeons were exposed first to multiple differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate and differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules that were correlated with green and red keys, respectively, and then were shifted to a variable-interval schedule arranged on a white key. In subsequent test sessions, the variable-interval schedule continued to operate, but green and red keys replaced the white key in alternate sessions. In Part 1 of the experiment, the variable-interval schedule correlated with the white key was introduced immediately after the multiple-schedule condition, and the test condition began 15 days later. This sequence was repeated twice, with a reversal of the correlation of the key colors with the components of the multiple schedule at the start of each new cycle. Part 2 added a 6-month break between the multiple-schedule history and the white-key variable-interval schedule followed by test sessions. The procedure was then repeated with a reversal of the correlation between key colors and multiple-schedule components. In the test sessions of Part 1, all pigeons consistently responded faster in the presence of the key color most recently correlated with the differential-reinforcement-of-high-rate contingency than during the color most recently correlated with the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate contingency. Similar but smaller effects were observed in Part 2. The effects of the reversals in these two parts of the experiment showed that only the most recent contingency exerted an influence on subsequent responding. The data suggest that this effect of the most recent history continues to operate on behavior under current contingencies even after a long lapse of time.     

Cocaine and food deprivation: effects on food-reinforced fixed-ratio performance in pigeons.

Key pecking by 6 pigeons was maintained by a fixed-ratio 30 schedule of food presentation while body weights were 80% of free-feeding weights. Acute administration of cocaine (0.3 to 13.0 mg/kg, i.m.) dose-dependently decreased response rates. Dose-effect curves were shifted to the right when 3 of the 6 pigeons were maintained at 70% of free-feeding weights and were shifted to the left when the other 3 pigeons were maintained at 90% of free-feeding weights. Then a dose of cocaine that initially decreased response rates by more than 95% of control rates was administered before each daily session. Comparable degrees of tolerance to these rate-decreasing effects developed in the two groups. The rate at which responding recovered was relatively rapid for pigeons in the 70% free-feeding-weight group and was slower for 2 of the 3 pigeons in the 90% free-feeding-weight group. When body weights were then increased from 70% to 80% or were decreased from 90% to 80% of free-feeding weight, performance was disrupted initially only for pigeons whose weight went from 70% to 80% of free feeding. In the present experiment the degree of deprivation may have indirectly influenced the degree of tolerance that developed to cocaine's response rate-decreasing effects because it directly influenced the dose chosen to be administered chronically. The degree of deprivation appeared to have a more direct influence on the rate at which tolerance developed.     

Discrimination and differentiation of response number in stimulus directed pecking of pigeons.

In Experiment 1, autoshaping trials terminated with food only if pigeons emitted more than a target number of responses during a trial in one condition and fewer than a target number in another. The median number of responses per trial shifted in accordance wtih the requirements. The responding of yoked-control birds that received response-independent reinforcers did not vary with the response requirements. In Experiment 2, the number of responses in autoshaping trial became the discriminative stimulus for reinforcement in the second component of a chained schedule. In one condition, responding was reinforced only if the number of responses in the first component was above a target value; in the other condition, responding was reinforced only if the number was below the target value. The distribution of the first-component response numbers did not shift systematically between discrimination conditions, but response rates in the second component indicated that the number of responses in the autoshaping trial was a discriminable property behavior.