Producing a change from competition to sharing: effects of large and adjusting response requirements

Pairs of high-school students matched-to-sample for money. On each trial, the first pair member to complete a fixed ratio of knob-pulling responses could work the matching problem on that trial. Competition occurred when both pair members responded for the problem. Sharing occurred when only one pair member responded on each trial, and the subjects alternated trials. Hence, sharing requires less responding and still allows a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject. Recent research has shown that increasing the response requirement to the point that it may have aversive properties will produce a change from competition to sharing. A related variable is an adjusting schedule that adjusts the subjects' response requirements so that their abilities to take reinforcers are equal. In this way, subjects might learn that competition requires more responding but produces no more reinforcers. However, recent research also suggests that competition decreases over sessions without experimental manipulations. Because of this possibility of a time-related variable, ratio size and an adjusting schedule were studied in a group design. Competition did decrease for all groups over sessions, but the large-ratio groups switched from competition to sharing sooner than the low-ratio groups. The adjusting schedule had a similar but smaller effect.     

The measurement of sharing and cooperation as equity effects and some relationships between them

The initial objective was to determine whether an increase in cooperative responses (minimal cooperation) was also accompanied by an increase in the degree of correspondence in the number of reinforcers of the two subjects (maximal cooperation). Correct matching-to-sample responses of seven pairs of male adolescents were reinforced with money. On each trial, a subject could (1) give the matching-to-sample problem to his coactor (give or cooperative responses), or (2) take the problem for himself (take responses). The first member of the pair to respond made the choice. Correspondence did increase under this procedure as compared to a baseline where problems were distributed randomly. However, the increased correspondence usually resulted from take responses rather than cooperative give responses. This equitable method of problem distribution, designated as sharing, was characterized by the subjects alternately taking problems. The spacing of daily sessions may have been partly responsible for the high degree of correspondence, because correspondence did not increase within the usual number of sessions when the sessions were massed, i.e., all in one day. Daily sessions require cooperative responses, i.e., each subject has to show up each day for the other to earn money, and this dependency upon the coactor's behavior may facilitate some sharing or cooperation to ensure the coactor's attendance.     

Fast acquisition of cooperation and trust: A two-stage view of trusting behavior

Trustful behavior was defined in terms of the consecutive numbers of matching-to-sample problems worth money that each subject worked during sessions that ended in an equitable distribution. Two stages of acquisition are inherent in this definition; the first stage requires acquisition of an equitable method of distributing reinforcers (cooperation) to show that the within-session deviations (trust) from equity that develop during the second stage are temporary and are not part of an inequitable method of distributing reinforcers. Previous research has indicated that a contingency to trust is necessary to override the aversiveness of the inequity inherent in trusting and to produce consistent and maximal trust (half of the problems worked consecutively by each subject). The present experiment examined such a contingency. The trust contingency was an increased requirement for changing the direction of problem allocation. Only the subject who had been allocated a problem could change that allocation, by pulling a lever 45 or more times. On the other hand, no separate responses were required to allow the person who worked the last problem to also work the next one (passive trust). Hence, giving a problem was the only way to increase the distribution of problems to the other person and hence prevent oneself from receiving all of the reinforcers. All eight pairs of subjects cooperated from the outset. Trusting behavior developed for all four pairs exposed to the contingency to trust and expanded to maximal levels by the second session for three of the four pairs.     

Acquisition and maintenance of trusting behavior

This study determined whether a two-person exchange situation contained natural contingencies for trusting behavior or whether external contingencies were necessary. Pairs of college students worked matching-to-sample problems for money. On each trial there was one problem and the subjects determined which of them would solve it. Trusting behavior was defined as an increase in the number of consecutive problems each subject allowed his partner to work during sessions that also ended with an equitable distribution. Simply, trust was a temporary deviation from equity. A subject could give the problem to the other person (cooperate), or not respond and let the other person take the problem (share). Other possibilities were for both subjects to try to take the problem (complete), or for neither subject to respond and thereby let the person who worked the last problem also work the next one (passive trust). When only four lever pulls were required to distribute a problem (no external contingencies to reach either equity or trust) subjects reached equity, but only minimal trust (strict alternation of single problems) developed in 18 sessions. When 30 or 60 lever pulls were required to distribute a problem (smaller response requirement for passive trust and therefore a contingency for trust), trusting behavior developed after a few sessions (fixed ratio 30) or after several trials of the first session (fixed ratio 60) and it ordinarily expanded gradually to 10 to 15 consecutive problems through passive trust. The aversiveness of the inequity involved in trusting appears to necessitate a contingency for acquisition. Once trust develops, however, this aversiveness is reduced as subjects learn the inequity is only temporary (e.g., once trust was acquired at fixed ratio 60 it was maintained at fixed ratio 4, which would not initially produce it), and the direction of the inequity appears to become of questionable importance (e.g., being behind was alternated over rather than within sessions and usually not in a systematic manner).     

Molar optimization versus delayed reinforcement as explanations of choice between fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules.

In a discrete-trials procedure, pigeons chose between a fixed-ratio 81 schedule and a progressive-ratio schedule by making a single peck at the key correlated with one or the other of these schedules. The response requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule began at 1 and increased by 10 each time the progressive-ratio schedule was chosen. Each time the fixed-ratio schedule was chosen, the requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule was reset to 1 response. In conditions where there was no intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about five consecutive trials (during which the response requirement increased to 41), and then chose the fixed-ratio schedule. This ratio was larger than that predicted by an optimality analysis that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that minimizes the response-reinforcer ratio or one that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that maximizes the overall rate of reinforcement. In conditions with a 25-s or 50-s intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about eight consecutive trials before choosing the fixed-ratio schedule. This change in performance with the addition of an intertrial interval was also not predicted by an optimality analysis. On the other hand, the results were consistent with the theory that choice is determined by the delays to the reinforcers delivered on the present trial and on subsequent trials.     

Analysis of the control exerted by a complex cooperation procedure

The study examined the effects of the availability of a non-cooperative response on cooperative responding when cooperation did not have to result in an equal distribution of work or reinforcers. Also, an attempt was made to determine if the cooperative responding was under the control of the cooperation procedure. Pairs of institutionalized retardates were tested in full view of each other. For each subject, reinforcers (money) were contingent upon responses on each of two panels: (1) a matching panel for working matching-to-sample problems, and (2) a sample panel for producing the sample stimulus. The matching panels of the two subjects were 6 m apart, but a subject's sample panel could be placed at different distances from his matching panel. For each subject, either his own or his partner's sample panel could be nearest his matching panel such that less walking was required to reach one sample panel than the other. Subjects could work either individually, by producing their own sample stimulus, or cooperatively, by producing the sample stimulus for their partner. Subjects selected whichever solution involved the least amount of walking. The importance of testing for control by the cooperation procedure was indicated by the findings that cooperative-like responses were not always under the control of the cooperation procedure.     

Unequal reinforcer magnitudes and relative preference for cooperation in the dyad

College-student subjects, who were paired with a confederate, chose to respond either independently or cooperatively for money reinforcers. The subject's relative preference for cooperation was assessed by a procedure (analogous to the psychophysical method of limits) in which response choice was monitored as reinforcer magnitude for one response mode was systematically varied while the other remained constant. Relative preference for cooperation was assessed when the confederate's payoff for cooperation was greater than the subject's (Experiment I) and when the confederate's payoff for independent responding was less than the subject's (Experiment II). For some subjects, changes in the confederate's reinforcer magnitudes resulted in shifts in relative preference for cooperation, which reduced the earnings differences, even though these preference shifts reduced the subject's absolute earnings. For those subjects for whom within-dyad differences in reinforcer magnitude produced no effect, a changeover button was introduced that allowed the subject to eliminate the payoff difference without reducing her own earnings; some subjects used this changeover button to eliminate earnings differences. Thus, the behavior of subjects varied, in part, as a function of reinforcer magnitudes provided for the confederate.     

Concurrent performances: reinforcement by different doses of intravenous cocaine in rhesus monkeys

Different doses of intravenous cocaine reinforced the lever pressing of rhesus monkeys under two-lever concurrent or concurrent-chain schedules. Under the concurrent procedure, responding produced drug reinforcers arranged according to independent variable-interval 1-min schedules. Under the concurrent-chain procedure, responding in the variable-interval link led to one of two mutually exclusive, equal-valued, fixed-ratio links; completion of the ratio produced a drug reinforcer. Under both procedures, responding on one lever produced a constant dose of 0.05 or 0.1 mg/kg/injection, while on the other lever, dose was systematically varied within a range of 0.013 to 0.8 mg/kg/injection. Preference, indicated by relative response frequency on the variable-dose lever during the variable-interval link, was always for the larger of the doses. Relative response frequencies on the variable-dose lever roughly matched relative drug intake (mg/kg of drug obtained on variable lever divided by mg/kg of drug obtained on both levers). For many dose comparisons, responding occurred and reinforcers were obtained almost exclusively on the preferred lever. Overall variable-interval rates generally were lower than with other reinforcers, and these low rates, under the experimental conditions, may have occasioned the exclusive preferences.     

Within-session Response Patterns On Conjoint Variable-interval Variable-time Schedules

Operant responding often changes within sessions, even when factors such as rate of reinforcement remain constant. The present study was designed to determine whether within-session response patterns are determined by the total number of reinforcers delivered during the session or only by the reinforcers earned by the operant response. Four rats pressed a lever and 3 pigeons pecked a key for food reinforcers delivered by a conjoint variable-interval variable-time schedule. The overall rate of reinforcement of the conjoint schedule varied across conditions from 15 to 480 reinforcers per hour. When fewer than 120 reinforcers were delivered per hour, the within-session patterns of responding on conjoint schedules were similar to those previously observed when subjects received the same total number of reinforcers by responding on simple variable-interval schedules. Response patterns were less similar to those observed on simple variable-interval schedules when the overall rate of reinforcement exceeded 120 reinforcers per hour. These results suggest that response-independent reinforcers can affect the within-session pattern of responding on a response-dependent schedule. The results are incompatible with a response-based explanation of within-session changes in responding (e.g., fatigue), but are consistent with both reinforcer-based (e.g., satiation) and stimulus-based (e.g., habituation) explanations.     

Reciprocal cooperation in dyads

This study investigated the conditions that promote long-term social exchange when the immediate payoff for social participation is equal to or less than for individual responding. The 10 subjects, from a special education unit and ranging between 10 and 16 years of age, comprised five dyads to participate in daily 20-min sessions. During the first experiment, the subjects sat beside each other and in front of an automated apparatus which automatically distributed points (representing money) to self, to partner, or to the group. During baseline conditions, the subjects could earn reinforcers from all three modes. During the dependency conditions, which alternated between subjects at 3-day intervals, one subject could earn reinforcers from all three modes while a partner could earn reinforcers only from the mode requiring subject's assistance. Four of the five dyads increased their levels of cooperative responding during the several reversals in which first one and then the other subject was dependent upon the partner for reinforcement. This pattern maintained when the method of distributing reinforcers was changed to a manual procedure requiring the experimenter to record point distributions by transferring beads on an abacus. This suggested that the distribution modes rather than the experimental apparatus were important in promoting the cooperative pattern. In the second experiment all subjects continued to cooperate with partner, even when they could have earned more by working alone. Eventually a value for the self mode was reached where the subjects discontinued their cooperation to work for self.     

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.     

The effect of reinforcement differences on choice and response distribution during stimulus compounding

In Experiments I and II, rats were trained to respond on one lever during light and another during tone. The absence of tone and light controlled response cessation. In the multiple schedule of Experiment I, all reinforcements were received for responding in tone or light; in the chain schedule of Experiment II, all reinforcements were received in no tone + no light for not responding. Experiment I subjects, for which tone and light were associated with response and reinforcement increase, responded significantly more to tone-plus-light than to tone or light alone (additive summation). Experiment II subjects, for which tone and light were associated with response increase and reinforcement decrease, responded comparably to tone, light, and tone + light. Thus, additive summation was observed when stimulus-response and stimulus-reinforcer associations in tone and light were both positive, but not when they were conflicting. All subjects in both experiments responded predominantly on the light-correlated lever during tone + light, even when light intensity was reduced in testing. Furthermore, when a light was presented to a subject engaged in tone-associated responding, all subjects immediately switched the locus of responding to the light-correlated lever. No change in locus occurred when a tone was presented to a subject engaged in light-associated responding, irrespective of the stimulus-reinforcer association conditioned to tone. The light-lever preference in tone + light indicates that the heightened responding observed in Experiment I was not the summation of tone-associated behavior with light-associated behavior. Rather, it appears to be the result of a facilitation of one operant (light-associated responding) by the reinforcement-associated cue for the other.     

Avoidance of risk as a determinant of cooperation

Pairs of subjects could either cooperate or respond on a lower paying individual task. Whenever both subjects chose to cooperate, either subject could make a response that took $1.00 of the other's earnings. In Exp. I, a stimulus signalled when a “take” response had been made. Either subject could avoid the loss by switching to the individual task within 5 sec after the stimulus appeared. Rates of cooperation were high when losses could be avoided but decreased again when the avoidance condition was removed. In Exp. II, a response prevented “takes” from occurring for a specified time interval after the response. This procedure also maintained cooperation. When each avoidance response subtracted from earnings, both avoidance responding and cooperation were eliminated.     

Bouts of responding from variable-interval reinforcement of lever pressing by rats

Four rats obtained food pellets by lever pressing. A variable-interval reinforcement schedule assigned reinforcers on average every 2 min during one block of 20 sessions and on average every 8 min during another block. Also, at each variable-interval duration, a block of sessions was conducted with a schedule that imposed a variable-ratio 4 response requirement after each variable interval (i.e., a tandem variable-time variable-ratio 4 schedule). The total rate of lever pressing increased as a function of the rate of reinforcement and as a result of imposing the variable-ratio requirement. Analysis of log survivor plots of interresponse times indicated that lever pressing occurred in bouts that were separated by pauses. Increasing the rate of reinforcement increased total response rate by increasing the rate of initiating bouts and, less reliably, by lengthening bouts. Imposing the variable-ratio component increased response rate mainly by lengthening bouts. This pattern of results is similar to that reported previously with key poking as the response. Also, response rates within bouts were relatively insensitive to either variable.     

Variable-ratio schedules as variable-interval schedules with linear feedback loops.

The mathematical theory of linear systems has been used successfully to describe responding on variable-interval (VI) schedules. In the simplest extension of the theory to the variable-ratio (VR) case, VR schedules are treated as if they were VI schedules with linear feedback loops. The assumption entailed by this approach, namely, that VR and VI-plus-linear-feedback schedules are equivalent, was tested by comparing responding on the two types of schedule. Four human subjects' lever pressing produced monetary reinforcers on five VR schedules, and on five VI schedules with linear feedback loops that reproduced the feedback properties of the VR schedules. Pressing was initiated by instructions in 2 subjects, and was shaped by successive approximation in the other 2. The different methods of response initiation did not have differential effects on behavior. For each of the 4 subjects, the VR and the comparable VI-plus-linear-feedback schedules generated similar average response rates and similar response patterns. The subjects' behavior on both types of schedule was similar to that of avian and rodent species on VR schedules. These results indicate that the assumption entailed by the VI-plus-linear-feedback approach to the VR case is valid and, consequently, that the approach is worth pursuing. The results also confute interresponse-time theories of schedule performance, which require interval and ratio contingencies to produce different response rates.     

Within-session changes in key and lever pressing for water during several multiple variable-interval schedules

Rats pressed keys or levers for water reinforcers delivered by several multiple variable-interval schedules. The programmed rate of reinforcement varied from 15 to 240 reinforcers per hour in different conditions. Responding usually increased and then decreased within experimental sessions. As for food reinforcers, the within-session changes in both lever and key pressing were smaller, peaked later, and were more symmetrical around the middle of the session for lower than for higher rates of reinforcement. When schedules provided high rates of reinforcement, some quantitative differences appeared in the within-session changes for lever and key pressing and for food and water. These results imply that basically similar factors produce within-session changes in responding for lever and key pressing and for food and water. The nature of the reinforcer and the choice of response can also influence the quantitative properties of within-session changes at high rates of reinforcement. Finally, the results show that the application of Herrnstein's (1970) equation to rates of responding averaged over the session requires careful consideration.     

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.     

The conditioned reinforcement of repeated acquisition

Three monkeys were trained to emit a chain of three responses on three separate levers in a set of six levers to obtain food. The chain producing food (correct chain) was changed each day. During a trial, a press on any lever produced a feedback stimulus; a press on a correct lever produced an additional distinctive stimulus; the third correct press produced a food pellet. Test sessions in which either the food or the distinctive stimuli were removed were interspersed with baseline sessions. In tests without food presentations, the subjects acquired the correct chain rapidly, with a level of accuracy comparable to baseline. Removing the distintive stimuli for either the first or second member of the correct chain greatly retarded acquisition of that member of the chain. Removing all distinctive stimuli often reduced accuracy throughout the chain to chance level, even though food was presented following each correct chain. These results were interpreted as evidence that the distinctive stimuli presented after correct responses functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Reductions in accuracy following an omitted distinctive stimulus indicated that they were also discriminative stimuli for correct responding in their presence.     

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.     

Effects of pre-trial response requirements on self-control choices by rats and pigeons

Parallel experiments with rats and pigeons examined whether the size of a pre-trial ratio requirement would affect choices in a self-control situation. In different conditions, either 1 response or 40 responses were required before each trial. In the first half of each experiment, an adjusting-ratio schedule was used, in which subjects could choose a fixed-ratio schedule leading to a small reinforcer, or an adjusting-ratio schedule leading to a larger reinforcer. The size of the adjusting ratio requirement was increased and decreased over trials based on the subject's responses, in order to estimate an indifference point-a ratio at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. The second half of each experiment used an adjusting-delay procedure-fixed and adjusting delays to the small and large reinforcers were used instead of ratio requirements. In some conditions, particularly with the reinforcer delays, the rats had consistently longer adjusting delays with the larger pre-trial ratios, reflecting a greater tendency to choose the larger, delayed reinforcer when more responding was required to reach the choice point. No consistent effects of the pre-trial ratio were found for the pigeons in any of the conditions. These results may indicate that rats are more sensitive to the long-term reinforcement rates of the two alternatives, or they may result from a shallower temporal discounting rate for rats than for pigeons, a difference that has been observed in previous studies.