Interactions in multiple schedules: the role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency

In Experiments I and II, pigeons were exposed to single-key multiple schedules of response-independent and -dependent food presentation. Components were correlated with different keylights. When the rate of food presentation in the first component exceeded that in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively high at onset of the first component. Overall rate in that component varied inversely with component duration and the rate of food presentation in the second component. When responding was maintained in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively low at onset of that component. Overall rate in the second component varied directly with component duration and the rate of food presentation in that component. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to a two-key multiple schedule. Pecks on a constantly illuminated key produced food. Components were correlated with the color of a second key on which pecks had no scheduled consequences. The effects of component duration and rate of food presentation under the single-key response-dependent schedule were synthesized by combining response rates on each concurrently available key under the two-key procedure. The results support an account of multiple-schedule interactions in terms of the joint influence on responding of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.     

Methodological improvements to a Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady-State Behavior

We performed three experiments to improve the quality and retention of data obtained from a Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady-State Behavior (PRESS-B; Klapes et al., 2020). In Experiment 1, 120 participants worked on nine concurrent random-interval random-interval (conc RI RI) schedules and were assigned to four conditions of varying changeover delay (COD) length. The 0.5-s COD condition group exhibited the fewest instances of exclusive reinforcer acquisition. Importantly, this group did not differ in generalized matching law (GML) fit quality from the other groups. In Experiment 2, 60 participants worked on nine conc RI RI schedules with a wider range of scheduled reinforcement rate ratios than was used in Experiment 1. Participants showed dramatic reductions in exclusive reinforcer acquisition. Experiment 3 entailed a replication of Experiment 2 wherein blackout periods were implemented between the schedule presentations and each schedule remained in operation until at least one reinforcer was acquired on each alternative. GML fit quality was slightly more consistent in Experiment 3 than in the previous experiments. Thus, these results suggest that future PRESS-B studies should implement a shorter COD, a wider and richer scheduled reinforcement rate ratio range, and brief blackouts between schedule presentations for optimal data quality and retention.     

Social preference in rats

Rats were given repeated choices between social and nonsocial outcomes, and between familiar and unfamiliar social outcomes. Lever presses on either of 2 levers in the middle chamber of a 3-chamber apparatus opened a door adjacent to the lever, permitting 45-s access to social interaction with the rat in the chosen side chamber. In Experiment 1, rats preferred (a) social over nonsocial options, choosing their cagemate rat over an empty chamber, and (b) an unfamiliar over a familiar rat, choosing a non-cagemate over their cagemate. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2 with 2 different non-cagemate rats. Rats preferred both non-cagemate rats to a similar degree when pitted against their cagemate, but were indifferent when the 2 non-cagemates were pitted against each other. Similar preference for social over nonsocial and non-cagemate over cagemate was seen in Experiment 3, with new non-cagemate rats introduced after every third session. Response rates (for both cagemate and non-cagemate rats) were elevated under conditions of nonsocial (isolated) housing compared to conditions of social (paired) housing, demonstrating a social deprivation effect. Together, the experiments contribute to an experimental analysis of social preference within a social reinforcement framework, drawing on methods with proven efficacy in the analysis of reinforcement more generally.     

A comparison of accumulated and distributed reinforcement periods with children exhibiting escape-maintained problem behavior

Differential reinforcement is a common treatment for escape-maintained problem behavior in which compliance is reinforced on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule with brief access to positive and/or negative reinforcement. Recent research suggests some individuals prefer to complete longer work requirements culminating in prolonged (i.e. accumulated) reinforcement periods relative to brief (i.e. distributed) periods, but prolonged work exposure may evoke problem behavior and prevent compliance from contacting reinforcement when treating escape-maintained problem behavior. We exposed 3 children with escape-maintained problem behavior to both distributed (FR 1 resulting in 30 s of reinforcement) and accumulated (FR 15 resulting in 7.5 min of reinforcement) arrangements to compare their efficacy in maintaining low levels of problem behavior. We then assessed participants' preferences for these conditions in a concurrent-chains arrangement. Accumulated-reinforcement arrangements did not occasion additional problem behavior, but rather resulted in consistently lower levels of problem behavior for 2 of 3 participants. Participants demonstrated idiosyncratic preferences.     

A comparison of multiple reinforcer assessments to identify the function of maladaptive behavior

Functional analysis results indicated that maladaptive behaviors displayed by a 25-year-old man with profound mental retardation were maintained by attention from caregivers and possibly, to a lesser degree, by access to tangible items. A concurrent-schedules procedure was then used to study the relative reinforcing value for maladaptive behavior of attention versus tangible items. Results of the concurrent-schedules assessment and subsequent functional communication training indicated that preference for attention versus access to a tangible object varied.     

Choice in a variable environment: effects of blackout duration and extinction between components

Pigeons were trained in a procedure in which sessions included seven four- or 10-reinforcer components, each providing a different reinforcer ratio that ranged from 27:1 to 1:27. The components were arranged in random order, and no signals differentiated the component reinforcer ratios. Each condition lasted 50 sessions, and the data from the last 35 sessions were analyzed. Previous results using 10-s blackouts between components showed some carryover of preference from one component to the next, and this effect was investigated in Experiment 1 by varying blackout duration from 1 s to 120 s. The amount of carryover decreased monotonically as the blackout duration was lengthened. Preference also decreased between reinforcers within components, suggesting that preference change during blackout might follow the same function as preference change between reinforcers. Experiment 2 was designed to measure preference change between components more directly and to relate this to preference change during blackout. In two conditions a 60-s blackout occurred between components, and in two other conditions a 60-s period of unsignaled extinction occurred between components. Preference during the extinction period progressively fell toward indifference, and the level of preference following extinction was much the same as that following blackout. Although these results are consistent with Davison and Baum's (2000) theory of the effects of reinforcers on local preference, other findings suggest that theory is incomplete: After a sequence of reinforcers from one alternative, some residual preference remained after 60 s of extinction or blackout, indicating the possibility of an additional longer term accumulation of reinforcer effects than originally suggested.     

Drug discrimination under concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio schedules

Pigeons were trained to discriminate 5 mg/kg pentobarbital from saline under concurrent variable-ratio (VR) VR schedules, in which responses on the pentobarbital-biased lever were reinforced under the VR schedule with the smaller response requirements when pentobarbital was given before the session, and responses on the saline-biased key were reinforced under the VR schedule with the larger response requirements. When saline was administered before the session, the reinforcement contingencies associated with the two response keys were reversed. When responding stabilized under concurrent VR 20 VR 30, concurrent VR 10 VR 40, or concurrent VR 5 VR 50 schedules, pigeons responded almost exclusively on the key on which fewer responses were required to produce the reinforcer. When other doses of pentobarbital and other drugs were substituted for the training dose, low doses of all drugs produced responding on the saline-biased key. Higher doses of pentobarbital and chlordiazepoxide produced responding only on the pentobarbital-biased key, whereas higher doses of ethanol and phencyclidine produced responding only on this key less often. d-Amphetamine produced responding primarily on the saline-biased key. When drugs generalized to pentobarbital, the shape of the generalization curve under concurrent VR VR schedules was more often graded than quantal in shape. Thus, drug discrimination can be established under concurrent VR VR schedules, but the shapes of drug-discrimination dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules more closely resemble those seen under interval schedules than those seen under fixed-ratio schedules. Graded dose-response curves under concurrent VR VR schedules may relate to probability matching and difficulty in discriminating differences in reinforcement frequency.     

Preference and resistance to change with constant-duration schedule components

Previous research on preference between variable-interval terminal links in concurrent chains has most often used variable-duration terminal links ending with a single reinforcer. By contrast, most research on resistance to change in multiple schedules has used constant-duration components that include variable numbers of reinforcers in each presentation. Grace and Nevin (1997) examined both preference and resistance in variable-duration components; here, preference and resistance were examined in constant-duration components. Reinforcer rates were varied across eight conditions, and a generalized-matching-law analysis showed that initial-link preference strongly over-matched terminal-link reinforcer ratios. In multiple schedules, baseline response rates were unaffected by reinforcer rates, but resistance to intercomponent food, to extinction, and to intercomponent food plus extinction was greater in the richer component. The between-component difference in resistance to change exhibited additive effects for the three resistance tests, and was systematically related to reinforcer ratios. However, resistance was less sensitive to reinforcer ratios than was preference. Resistance to intercomponent food and to intercomponent food plus extinction was more sensitive to reinforcer ratios in the present study than in Grace and Nevin (1997). Thus, relative to variable-duration components, constant-duration components increased the sensitivity of both preference and relative resistance, supporting the proposition that these are independent and convergent measures of the effects of a history of reinforcement.     

Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

Three experiments were conducted to examine pigeons' postponement of signaled extinction periods (timeouts) from a schedule of food reinforcement when such responding neither decreased overall timeout frequency nor increased the overall frequency of food reinforcement. A discrete-trial procedure was used in which a response during the first 5 s of a trial postponed an otherwise immediate 60-s timeout to a later part of that same trial but had no effect on whether the timeout occurred. During time-in periods, responses on a second key produced food according to a random-interval 20-s schedule. In Experiment 1, the response-timeout interval was 45 s under postponement conditions and 0 s under extinction conditions (responses were ineffective in postponing timeouts). The percentage of trials with a response was consistently high when the timeout-postponement contingency was in effect and decreased to low levels when it was discontinued under extinction conditions. In Experiment 2, the response-timeout interval was also 45 s but postponement responses increased the duration of the timeout, which varied from 60 s to 105 s across conditions. Postponement responding was maintained, generally at high levels, at all timeout durations, despite sometimes large decreases in the overall frequency of food reinforcement. In Experiment 3, timeout duration was held constant at 60 s while the response-timeout interval was varied systematically across conditions from 0 s to 45 s. Postponement responding was maintained under all conditions in which the response-timeout interval exceeded 0 s (the timeout interval in the absence of a response). In some conditions of Experiment 3, which were designed to control for the immediacy of food reinforcement and food-correlated (time-in) stimuli, responding postponed timeout but the timeout was delayed whether a response occurred or not. Responding was maintained for 2 of 3 subjects, suggesting that behavior was negatively reinforced by timeout postponement rather than positively reinforced by the more immediate presentation of food or food-correlated (time-in) stimuli.