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.     

Operant and nonoperant vocal responding in the mynah: Complex schedule control and deprivation-induced responding

Several recent studies have been concerned with operant responses that are also affected by nonoperant factors, (e.g., biological constraints, innate behavior patterns, respondent processes). The major reason for studying mynah vocal responding concerned the special relation of avian vocalizations to nonoperant emotional and reflexive systems. The research strategy was to evaluate operant and nonoperant control by comparing the schedule control obtained with the vocal response to that characteristic of the motor responses of other animals. We selected single, multiple, and chain schedules that ordinarily produce disparate response rates at predictable times. In multiple schedules with one component where vocal responding (“Awk”) was reinforced with food (fixed-ratio or fixed-interval schedule) and one where the absence of vocal responding was reinforced (differential reinforcement of other behavior), response rates never exceeded 15 responses per minute, but clear schedule differences developed in response rate and pause time. Nonoperant vocal responding was evident when responding endured across 50 extinction sessions at 25% to 40% of the rate during reinforcement. The “enduring extinction responding” was largely deprivation induced, because the operant-level of naive mynahs under food deprivation was comparable in magnitude, but without deprivation the operant level was much lower. Food deprivation can induce vocal responding, but the relatively precise schedule control indicated that operant contingencies predominate when they are introduced.     

Development of a complex multiple schedule in the chimpanzee

The development of chimpanzee behavior on a four-component, three-lever multiple schedule is described. Component schedules included the Sidman avoidance procedure with a concurrent discriminated avoidance schedule on a second lever, fixed ratio performance for food, differential reinforcement of low rate for water requiring a dual response chain, and a symbol discrimination task for continuous food reinforcement using three levers. The avoidance component of this schedule was employed during the January 31, 1961 suborbital space flight of the chimpanzee “Ham.” On November 29, 1961, the chimpanzee “Enos” performed on the multiple schedule during three orbits around the earth in a Mercury capsule.     

The effects of punishment intensity on squirrel monkeys

Responses of squirrel monkeys were maintained by a variable-interval schedule of food reinforcement. Concurrently, punishment consisting of a brief electric shock followed each response. As has been found for pigeons and rats, punishment did not produce extreme, all-or-none reactions. By gradually increasing the punishment intensity it was possible to produce response rates intermediate to no suppression and complete suppression. Similarly, the moment-to-moment response rate was free of extreme fluctuations. A “warm-up” effect occurred in which the punished responses were especially suppressed during the initial part of a session. The pre-punishment performance was negatively accelerated within a session, and punishment reduced the degree of negative acceleration. When punishment was discontinued, responding recovered immediately except when suppression had been complete or prolonged. When the punishment intensity was decreased gradually, more suppression resulted at a given intensity than when intensity was increased gradually. This suggests a “behavioral inertia” effect wherein behavior at a new punishment intensity is biased toward the behavior at the previous value. A corollary generalization is that the larger the change in intensity, the less the behavior at the new value will be biased toward the behavior at the previous value.     

RESPONDING MAINTAINED UNDER INTERMITTENT SCHEDULES OF ELECTRIC-SHOCK PRESENTATION: “SAFETY” OR SCHEDULE EFFCTS?

Four experiments were conducted in which lever pressing by squirrel monkeys was maintained under multiple, mixed, or chained schedules of electric-shock presentation. In the first two experiments, a multiple schedule was employed in which a fixed-interval schedule of shock presentation alternated with a signaled two-minute component. Initially, no events were scheduled during the two-minute component (a safety period). In the first experiment, the safety period was “degraded” by introducing and systematically increasing the frequency of periodic shocks presented during that component. In the second experiment, the proportion of overall safe time to unsafe time was decreased by decreasing the value of the fixed-interval schedule while holding constant shock frequency during the two-minute component. In the third experiment, the overall arrangement was changed from a multiple to a mixed schedule in an attempt to determine whether fixed-interval responding would be maintained when a single exteroceptive stimulus was associated with both components. In the fourth experiment, the overall arrangement was changed from a multiple to a chained schedule in an effort to determine whether fixed-interval responding would be maintained when its consequence was presentation of a signaled “unsafe” period. Fixed-interval responding was well maintained under all experimental conditions; the varied relationships obtained lend more support to conceptualizations of shock-maintained behavior as exemplifying schedule-controlled behavior than to suggestions that such behavior may be readily accounted for by “safety theory.”     

Performances on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement: Data and theory

Two differences between ratio and interval performance are well known: (a) Higher rates occur on ratio schedules, and (b) ratio schedules are unable to maintain responding at low rates of reinforcement (ratio “strain”). A third phenomenon, a downturn in response rate at the highest rates of reinforcement, is well documented for ratio schedules and is predicted for interval schedules. Pigeons were exposed to multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in which the intervals generated in the variable-ratio component were programmed in the variable-interval component, thereby “yoking” or approximately matching reinforcement in the two components. The full range of ratio performances was studied, from strained to continuous reinforcement. In addition to the expected phenomena, a new phenomenon was observed: an upturn in variable-interval response rate in the midrange of rates of reinforcement that brought response rates on the two schedules to equality before the downturn at the highest rates of reinforcement. When the average response rate was corrected by eliminating pausing after reinforcement, the downturn in response rate vanished, leaving a strictly monotonic performance curve. This apparent functional independence of the postreinforcement pause and the qualitative shift in response implied by the upturn in variable-interval response rate suggest that theoretical accounts will require thinking of behavior as partitioned among at least three categories, and probably four: postreinforcement activity, other unprogrammed activity, ratio-typical operant behavior, and interval-typical operant behavior.     

Reinforcement by an imprinting stimulus versus water on simple schedules in ducklings

Ducklings (5 to 28 days old) were trained to peck a pole on fixed-ratio, fixed-interval, and multiple schedules using brief presentation of an imprinting stimulus as the response-contingent event. Other ducklings of the same age were trained similarly except that reinforcement consisted of access to water. With water reinforcement the typical fixed-ratio (“break-run”), fixed-interval (“scallop”), and multiple schedule response patterns were readily established and consistently maintained. With the imprinting stimulus these schedule effects were inconsistent in some subjects and virtually nonexistent in others, despite extended training. Schedule control with the imprinting stimulus was not improved by the use of a reinforcement signaling procedure which enhances responding reinforced by electrical brain stimulation on intermittent schedules. However, the overall rates of responding and the extinction functions generated after reinforcement with water versus the imprinting stimulus were comparable. These findings imply that control by temporal and discriminative stimuli may be relatively weak when a young organism's behavior is reinforced by presentation of an imprinting stimulus.     

Facilitation and suppression of responding under temporally defined schedules of negative reinforcement

Two parameters for scheduling aversive stimulus presentations were studied systematically by specifying concurrent and independent probabilities of electric shock delivery for the occurrence and for the non-occurrence of a lever-press response. After preliminary training on a free-operant shock-avoidance schedule, 16 rhesus monkeys were divided into four groups, each group being assigned one shock distribution on a continuum from fixed interval to a widely ranging variable interval. Within groups, each subject was successively exposed to three values of response-dependence of shock delivery on a continuum from response-independent shock to complete dependence of shock on response occurrence (“punishment”). Introduction of shock following avoidance training produced initial response facilitation followed by suppression. Responding during both the facilitation and suppression periods was maximal when the shock schedule was periodic and response independent. Responding decreased as the inter-shock intervals were made more variable across groups, and as shock delivery was made increasingly response dependent within individual subjects.     

A test of the reinforcing properties of stimuli correlated with nonreinforcement

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

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

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

Conditioned reinforcement and discrimination in second-order schedules

Pigeons were exposed to multiple second-order schedules in which responding on the “main key” was reinforced according to either a variable-interval or fixed-interval schedule by production of a brief stimulus on the “brief-stimulus key”. A response was required to the brief stimulus during its fourth (final) presentation to produce food; responses to the earlier brief stimuli indicated the extent to which the final brief stimulus was discriminated from preceding ones. Main-key response rates were higher in early components of paired brief-stimulus schedules, in which each brief stimulus was the same as that paired with reinforcement, than in comparable unpaired brief-stimulus or tandem schedules. Poor discrimination occurred between paired brief stimuli (Experiment I). When chain stimuli on the main key induced a discrimination between the first two and second two brief stimuli, the response-rate enhancement in the paired brief-stimulus schedule persisted (Experiment II). Rate enhancement diminished when the initial link of the chain included the first three components (Experiment IV). Eliminating the contingency between responding and brief-stimulus production also diminished rate enhancement (Experiment III). The results show that the discriminative and conditioned reinforcing effects of food-paired brief stimuli may be selectively manipulated and suggest that the reinforcing effects are modulated by other reinforcers in the situation.     

Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding

Undergraduate students' presses on left and right buttons occasionally made available points exchangeable for money. Blue lights over the buttons were correlated with multiple random-ratio random-interval components; usually, the random-ratio schedule was assigned to the left button and the random-interval to the right. During interruptions on the multiple schedule, students filled out sentence-completion guess sheets (e.g., The way to earn points with the left button is to...). For different groups, guesses were shaped with differential points also worth money (e.g., successive approximations to “press fast” for the left button), or were instructed (e.g., Write “press slowly” for the left button), or were simply collected. Control of rate of pressing by guesses was examined in individual cases by reversing shaped or instructed guesses, by instructing pressing rates, and/or by reversing multiple-schedule contingencies. Shaped guesses produced guess-consistent pressing even when guessed rates opposed those characteristic of the contingencies (e.g., slow random-ratio and fast random-interval rates), whereas guesses and rates of pressing rarely corresponded after unsuccessful shaping of guesses or when guessing had no differential consequences. Instructed guesses and pressing were inconsistently related. In other words, when verbal responses were shaped (contingency-governed), they controlled nonverbal responding. When they were instructed (rule-governed), their control of nonverbal responding was inconsistent: the verbal behavior sometimes controlled, sometimes was controlled by, and sometimes was independent of the nonverbal behavior.     

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.     

Sequential effects in dimensional contrast

Two experiments examined pigeons' response rates during short trials signaled by stimuli closely spaced along a wavelength continuum. In Experiment 1 separate halves of the continuum were correlated with different reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 2, the middle stimulus was accompanied by a lower probability of reinforcement than were the remaining wavelengths. Both procedures resulted in dimensional contrast “shoulders,” seen as relatively enhanced or depressed response rates in the presence of stimuli between the extreme of the continuum and the border separating the positive and negative stimuli. Sequential analyses addressed possible contributions of the following interactions: (a) local contrast, seen when rate during a given schedule depends on the schedule in the just-preceding trial; (b) modification of local contrast by the similarity of the signaling stimuli (P. Blough, 1983); and (c) schedule-independent rate contrast, seen when rate in a given trial depends on the rate controlled by the stimulus that accompanied the just-preceding trial (Malone & Rowe, 1981). Dimensional contrast functions were similar when isolated according to the schedule, to the similarity of the signaling stimulus, and to the response rate of the just-preceding trial. The interactions noted above do not appear to make important contributions to this effect.     

Response rate and sensitivity to the molar feedback function relating response and reinforcement rate on VI+ schedules of reinforcement

In 5 experiments, the author examined rats' sensitivity to the molar feedback function relating response rate to reinforcement rate on schedules of reinforcement. These studies demonstrated that, at lower rates of responding, rats' performance on variable ratio (VR), variable interval (VI), and variable interval with linear feedback loop (VI+) schedules was determined largely by reinforcement of interresponse times; response rates were faster on VR than on both VI and VI+ schedules. In contrast, when procedures were adopted to maintain high rates of response, rats showed sensitivity to the molar characteristics of the schedules; they responded as fast on a VI+ schedule as on a VR schedule and faster on both of these schedules than on a yoked VI schedule. When the variance of response rate was manipulated, this factor was noted as an important element in determining sensitivity to the molar characteristics of the schedule.     

Punishment and the potential for negative reinforcement with histamine injection

The present study examined punishment of responding with histamine injection, and its potential to generate avoidance of punishment. Sprague–Dawley rats were trained under concurrent schedules in which responses on one lever (the punishment lever) produced food under a variable‐interval schedule, and under some conditions intermittent injections of histamine, which suppressed behavior. Responses on a second (avoidance) lever prevented histamine injections scheduled on the punishment lever. After stabilization of punished responding, a variable‐interval 15‐s schedule of cancellation of histamine (avoidance) was added for responding on the second/avoidance lever, without subsequent acquisition of responding on that lever. Progressive decreases in the length of the punishment variable‐interval schedule increased suppression on the punishment lever without increases in response rates on the avoidance lever. Exchanging contingencies on the levers ensured that response rates on the avoidance lever were sufficiently high to decrease the histamine injection frequency; nonetheless response rates on the avoidance lever decreased over subsequent sessions. Under no condition was responding maintained on the avoidance lever despite continued punishing effectiveness of histamine throughout. The present results suggest that avoidance conditioning is not a necessary condition for effective punishment, and confirm the importance of empirical rather than presumed categorization of behavioral effects of stimulus events.     

Some punishing effects of response-force

The present experiment explored the punishing effect of different response-force requirements by means of a two-operant design analogous to a two-component chain schedule. The first component of the chain required a lever pull through 0.25 in. (0.64 cm) at 1 lb (4.45 N) of force. The second component required a lever pull through an additional 0.75 in. (1.90 cm) with the force varied between sessions from 1 lb to 50 lb (4.45 N to 223 N). Completion of the second component of the chain was reinforced after variable intervals averaging 1 min. The average rate of first-component response decreased as the force requirement for second-component responses was increased. This rate reduction did not appear to be due to increased response duration, “fatigue”, or differing rates of reinforcement. If the force requirement for the second-component response is viewed as a consequence for the first-component response, then the results of the experiment show that a high force requirement is a punisher.     

Stimulus properties of conspecific behavior

Two experiments identified the conditions in which the behavior of one bird acquired discriminative control of the behavior of a second bird. The schedule-controlled behaviors of the “stimulus” bird were differentially correlated with the components of a multiple schedule according to which the pecking of an “experimental” bird produced food. In Experiment 1, three pairs of pigeons acquired a successive discrimination and two reversals with the conspecific stimuli. Experiment 2 included a control condition in which no systematic relationship existed between the conspecific stimuli and the component schedules. While differential responding during the components of the multiple schedule was again found when the conspecific stimuli were available, differential responding did not occur in the control condition. Test conditions included in the experiments indicated that (a) the differential responding was not dependent on the discriminative properties of reinforcement, (b) the pecking of the stimulus and experimental birds was temporally interrelated, (c) the visual conspecific stimuli were critical to the maintenance of the discrimination, and (d) the observed stimulus control immediately generalized to an unfamiliar conspecific.     

Superstitious key pecking after three peck-produced reinforcements

The first three pecks on a response key by experimentally naive pigeons produced grain reinforcements. Thereafter, for approximately 50 experimental sessions and under a variety of schedule conditions, grain was presented independently of the subjects' behaviors. The pigeons continued to peck the response key “superstitiously” throughout the 50 sessions. The results suggest that superstitions are commonplace—not relatively infrequent or abnormal events—in the behavior of pigeons.