Magnitude production and magnitude estimation of taste intensity

Magnitude productions of sodium chloride (salty), quinine hydrochloride (bitter), and sucrose (sweet) yielded steeper psychophysical functions than those obtained with magnitude estimation. Hydrochloric acid (sour) produced the opposite effect. The results are discussed with respect to previous findings in taste intensity scaling and to general psychophysical considerations.     

Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task

It is difficult to name the color of a stimulus when the stimulus is a word naming a different color. When the word is congruent with the color in which it is written, color naming is much quicker. Similar results are also obtained when color-related words are used instead of color names. These results are taken as evidence for the operation of associative factors that could facilitate or impair performance in the color-word task.     

Aggression as a reinforcer: operant behavior in the mouse-killing rat

Two experiments examined mouse killing as a reinforcer of key pressing by rats that killed mice. In Experiment I, mouse-killing rats performed the key-pressing response when each press was reinforced with presentation of a mouse. Offered a choice between a key that yielded presentation of mice and one that did not, the rats preferred the key that yielded mice. When the contingency was reversed, the rats preferred the other key and continued to kill mice. In Experiment II, mouse-killing rats that did not kill rat pups performed a key-pressing response reinforced with presentation of mice on a variable-interval schedule. In tests for responding reinforced on that schedule with presentation of normal mice, anesthetized mice, dead mice, or rat pups, these rats that killed mice but not rat pups exhibited a decline in response rate when rat pups were the reinforcer. Altering the condition of the mice did not significantly affect performance.     

Some effects of interreinforcement time upon choice

Pigeons' responses were reinforced on two identical and concurrently available chain variable-interval-schedules. Unlike the typical concurrent chains procedure, both links were operative throughout, thus producing three types of concurrency: (1) concurrent initial links; (2) concurrent initial and terminal links; (3) concurrent terminal links. Choice proportions in each of these three states suggested that the pigeons were sensitive to momentary likelihoods of reinforcement: choice proportions for a schedule were higher when the schedule had been operative for some time, resulting in a higher probability of reinforcement. The study also showed that the relative rates of responding did not match the relative rates of reinforcement in any of the three states of concurrency. Instead, the choice proportions in both the concurrent initial and in the concurrent terminal links were intermediate between the scheduled and the obtained relative rates of reinforcement, while the choice proportions for a terminal link concurrent with an initial link consistently overmatched the relative interreinforcement times (and were typically 1.00). These data indicate that an accurate characterization of choice may not be obtained by considering only the relative interreinforcement interval where one interreinforcement interval is segmented into a chain. Instead, the organism's choice for a schedule will be substantially lowered by the chaining operation.     

Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer

In Experiment 1, matching of relative response rates to relative rates of reinforcement was obtained in concurrent variable-interval schedules when the absolute values of the two concurrent variable-interval schedules varied from 6 sec and 12 sec to 600 sec and 1200 sec. Increases in the duration of the changeover delay, however, produced decreases in the relative response rates and, consequently, some deviation from matching. In Experiment 2, matching of relative response rates to the relative duration of the reinforcer failed to occur when the equal variable-interval schedules arranging access to the two different reinforcer durations (1.5 and 6 sec) were varied in size from concurrent variable-interval 10-sec schedules to concurrent variable-interval 600-sec schedules.     

Lever attacking by rats during free-operant avoidance

Rats pressed a lever to avoid shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule. Some subjects were also exposed to extinction in which the response-shock contingency was eliminated while the shock-shock contingency remained in effect. A specially constructed lever was used that registered not only presses, but also biting attacks on the lever. Throughout various phases of the study, shocks often elicited lever biting as well as post-shock responding. The results suggested that shock-elicited attacks that are forceful enough to activate the operandum might account for some of the responding that occurs in experiments on free-operant avoidance behavior. In particular, shock-elicited operandum attacking might account for post-shock response bursting during free-operant avoidance and the extreme persistence of responding sometimes noted when shocks are delivered during the extinction of avoidance behavior. To the extent that this is true, these phenomena should not be characterized as operant behavior in interpreting the results of experiments on free operant avoidance.     

Fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance with and without signalled reinforcement

Rats trained to lever press on a fixed-interval limited-hold avoidance schedule maintained a pattern of responding similar to that maintained by fixed-interval limited-hold schedules of positive reinforcement. But this positively accelerated pattern of behavior was maintained only when the occurrence of reinforcement was signalled by the presentation of a brief flash of light. This result suggests that the discriminative function of the reinforcer in avoidance is less pronounced than the discriminative function of the reinforcer in escape or positive reinforcement. It also suggests that the distinction between positive reinforcement and avoidance is not superfluous. Although the schedule of reinforcement is an important variable in determining the pattern of behavior, other variables, such as the nature (i.e., stimulus presentation, termination, or omission) of the reinforcer, are also potent determinants of behavior.