Positive conditioned suppression: Transfer of performance between contingent and noncontingent reinforcement situations

Five homing pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. A fixed-duration stimulus was occasionally presented on one key; and, in various conditions, this stimulus terminated (a) without reinforcement, (b) in noncontingent reinforcement, (c) with reinforcement contingent on a response on the key on which the stimulus was presented, and (d) with reinforcement contingent on a response on the key on which the stimulus was not presented. Initially, a stimulus terminating in noncontingent reinforcement generally produced decreased response rates on both keys during the stimulus. Contingencies, however, reliably produced increased rates during the stimulus on the key on which the contingency was arranged, relative to the rate on the concurrently available key. Contingency conditions were followed by noncontingency conditions in which the separation of rates caused by contingencies was maintained. When rates during the stimulus were compared with response rates on the same keys in the absence of the stimulus, contingency-caused rate increases and decreases were again found, but only the rate decreases were maintained in subsequent noncontingency conditions. Further data suggested that the contingency-caused rate changes were not maintained when the stimulus terminated without reinforcement, and that they were unaffected by a threefold decrease in the reinforcement rate provided by the baseline schedules. The results support the suggestion that performance in the positive conditioned suppression procedure results from concurrent and multiple schedule interactions. They further suggest that the production of either acceleration or suppression is dependent on adventitious and historical contingencies.     

Concurrent avoidance of shocks by pigeons pecking a key

Three pigeons were studied on concurrent, unsignaled, avoidance schedules in a two-key procedure. Shock-shock intervals were two seconds in both schedules. The response-shock interval on one key was always 22 seconds, while the response-shock interval associated with the other key was varied from 7 to 52 seconds in different experimental conditions. Response rates on the key associated with the varied schedule tended to decrease when the response-shock interval length was increased. Responding on the key associated with the constant schedule was not systematically affected.     

Concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules and the matching relation

Five rats responded under concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Fixed-interval values ranged from 50-seconds to 300-seconds and variable-ratio values ranged from 30 to 360; a five-second changeover delay was in effect throughout the experiment. The relations between reinforcement ratios obtained from the two schedules and the ratios of responses and time spent on the schedules were described by Baum's (1974) generalized matching equation. All subjects undermatched both response and time ratios to reinforcement ratios, and all subjects displayed systematic bias in favor of the variable-ratio schedules. Response ratios undermatched reinforcement ratios less than did time ratios, but response ratios produced greater bias than did time ratios for every subject and for the group as a whole. Local rates of responding were generally higher on the variable-ratio than on the fixed-interval schedules. When responding was maintained by both schedules, a period of no responding on either schedule immediately after fixed-interval reinforcement typically was followed by high-rate responding on the variable-ratio schedule. At short fixed-interval values, when a changeover to the fixed-interval schedule was made, responding usually continued until fixed-interval reinforcement was obtained; at longer values, a changeover back to the variable-ratio schedule usually occurred when fixed-interval reinforcement was not forthcoming within a few seconds, and responding then alternated between the two schedules every few seconds until fixed-interval reinforcement finally was obtained.     

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement was studied with a concurrent-chain procedure. Lever pressing by rats in concurrently available variable-interval 60-second initial links occasionally produced mutually exclusive terminal-link reinforcement delays. A constant delay of reinforcement (either 15 seconds or 30 seconds) composed one terminal link and mixed delays (.2 second and twice the value of the constant delay) were arranged in the other terminal link. The proportion of .2-second delays in the mixed-delay terminal link took on values of 0, .1, .25, .5, .75, .9, and 1.0 over experimental conditions. Based on relative rates of responding in the initial links, preference for the mixed delays was a negatively accelerated function of the proportion of short, mixed delays. Three of five rats preferred the mixed delays to the constant delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .1 or higher, and all five rats preferred the mixed delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .25 or higher. Neither Squires and Fantino's (1971) delay-reduction model of choice nor a model based on the harmonic mean reinforcement delay provided a close estimate of choice proportions over the range of short-delay proportions studied. The delay-reduction model underestimated choice for the mixed delays at low and intermediate proportions of short delays, and the harmonic-mean-delay model overestimated choice for the mixed delays at intermediate and high proportions of short delays.     

Hill-climbing by pigeons

Pigeons were exposed to two types of concurrent operant-reinforcement schedules in order to determine what choice rules determine behavior on these schedules. In the first set of experiments, concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to either of two alternative schedules produced food reinforcement after a random time interval. The frequency of food-reinforcement availability for the two schedules was varied over different ranges for different birds. In the second series of experiments, concurrent variable-ratio, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to one schedule produced food reinforcement after a random time interval, whereas food reinforcement occurred for an alternative schedule only after a random number of responses. Results from both experiments showed that pigeons consistently follow a behavioral strategy in which the alternative schedule chosen at any time is the one which offers the highest momentary reinforcement probability (momentary maximizing). The quality of momentary maximizing was somewhat higher and more consistent when both alternative reinforcement schedules were time-based than when one schedule was time-based and the alternative response-count based. Previous attempts to provide evidence for the existence of momentary maximizing were shown to be based upon faulty assumptions about the behavior implied by momentary maximizing and resultant inappropriate measures of behavior.     

Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation of response alternatives

Four pigeons were exposed to independent concurrent variable-interval 20-second variable-interval 60-second schedules of reinforcement. A transparent partition was inserted midway between the two response keys. The length of the partition was systematically manipulated. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate in Experiment 1. Over-matching was observed with a partition length of 20 centimeters. In Experiment 2 a four-second limited hold was added to the schedules. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate that exceeded the decrease observed in Experiment 1. This manipulation produced nearly exclusive choice of the variable-interval 20-second component. The present results, together with results obtained in related research, suggest that deviation from matching is a function of procedural variables that determine the consequences of a changeover response.     

Choice as a function of local versus molar reinforcement contingencies.

Rats were trained on a discrete-trial probability learning task. In Experiment 1, the molar reinforcement probabilities for the two response alternatives were equal, and the local contingencies of reinforcement differentially reinforced a win-stay, lose-shift response pattern. The win-stay portion was learned substantially more easily and appeared from the outset of training, suggesting that its occurrence did not depend upon discrimination of the local contingencies but rather only upon simple strengthening effects of individual reinforcements. Control by both types of local contingencies decreased with increases in the intertrial interval, although some control remained with intertrial intervals as long as 30 s. In Experiment 2, the local contingencies always favored win-shift and lose-shift response patterns but were asymmetrical for the two responses, causing the molar reinforcement rates for the two responses to differ. Some learning of the alternation pattern occurred with short intertrial intervals, although win-stay behavior occurred for some subjects. The local reinforcement contingencies were discriminated poorly with longer intertrial intervals. In the absence of control by the local contingencies, choice proportion was determined by the molar contingencies, as indicated by high exponent values for the generalized matching law with long intertrial intervals, and lower values with short intertrial intervals. The results show that when molar contingencies of reinforcement and local contingencies are in opposition, both may have independent roles. Control by molar contingencies cannot generally be explained by local contingencies.     

Choice, changeover, and travel: A quantitative model

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which responding on fixed-interval schedules was required to give access to the alternate schedule. Responding on the concurrent schedules was not allowed, after changing over had commenced, until the changeover schedule had been completed. In Parts 1 to 3 of the experiment, the changeover fixed-interval schedules were equal and were 0 s, 10 s, and 20 s, respectively. In each part, the relative frequency of reinforcement obtained on the concurrent schedules was varied over at least five conditions. In Part 4, the concurrent schedules were equal, and one changeover fixed-interval schedule was twice the other. Under these conditions, the absolute sizes of the changeover schedules were varied. Increasing the changeover requirement from 0 s to 10 s (Parts 1 and 2) resulted in increases in the sensitivity of behavior allocation to reinforcers obtained, but no further increase was obtained when the changeover schedules were increased to 20 s (Part 3). In Part 4, performance was biased towards the concurrent schedule that took less time to enter. These results are consistent with a subtractive punishment model of travel in which the degree of punishment is measured by the number of reinforcers apparently lost from a schedule when the subject changes to that schedule. Absolute times spent on the main keys could be accurately described by a previous model of changeover performance.     

Violations of stochastic transitivity on concurrent chains: Implications for theories of choice

The concurrent-chains procedure has been used to measure how choice depends on various aspects of reinforcement, such as its delay and its magnitude. Navarick and Fantino (1972, 1974, 1975) have found that choice in this procedure can violate the condition of stochastic transitivity that is required if a unidimensional scale for reinforcements is to be possible. It is shown in this paper that two simple unidimensional models of choice on concurrent chains can produce violations of stochastic transitivity. It is argued that such violations may result from the complex contingencies of the concurrent-chains procedure.     

Concurrent schedules: Effects of time- and response-allocation constraints

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules arranged on two keys. In Part 1 of the experiment, the subjects responded under no constraints, and the ratios of reinforcers obtainable were varied over five levels. In Part 2, the conditions of the experiment were changed such that the time spent responding on the left key before a subsequent changeover to the right key determined the minimum time that must be spent responding on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. When the left key provided a higher reinforcer rate than the right key, this procedure ensured that the time allocated to the two keys was approximately equal. The data showed that such a time-allocation constraint only marginally constrained response allocation. In Part 3, the numbers of responses emitted on the left key before a changeover to the right key determined the minimum number of responses that had to be emitted on the right key before a changeover to the left key could occur. This response constraint completely constrained time allocation. These data are consistent with the view that response allocation is a fundamental process (and time allocation a derivative process), or that response and time allocation are independently controlled, in concurrent-schedule performance.