Choice and reinforcement delay

Previous studies of choice between two delayed reinforcers have indicated that the relative immediacy of the reinforcer is a major determinant of the relative frequency of responding. Parallel studies of choice between two interresponse times have found exceptions to this generality. The present study looked at the choice by pigeons between two delays, one of which was always four times longer than the other, but whose absolute durations were varied across conditions. The results indicated that choice is not uniquely determined by the relative immediacy of reinforcement, but that absolute delays are also involved. Models for concurrent chained schedules appear to be more applicable to the present data than the matching relation; however, these too failed to predict choice for long delays.     

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.     

The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.     

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.     

Dynamic equilibrium on a cyclic-interval schedule with a ramp

Five human subjects pressed a panel for money on a cyclic-interval schedule that arranged recurring periods of linearly increasing reinforcement rates (ramps). Response rate versus time functions for all subjects showed recurring periods of linearly increasing response rates. The responding of four of the five subjects was in phase with the reinforcement input. The remaining subject showed a two-minute phase shift. These results suggest that organisms may act like simple amplifiers on cyclic-interval schedules, that is, the form of the input signal is not changed by the organism, but is returned with amplification. By analogy with the variable-interval case, the controlling variable on cyclic-interval schedules with rate ramps may be the constant reinforcement acceleration that is arranged by the schedule.     

Stimulus control of respondent and operant key pecking: A single key procedure

Pigeons' responses to a uniformly illuminated response key were either reinforced on a variable-interval one-minute schedule of reinforcement or extinguished for one-minute periods. When 1.5 second signals were presented at the beginning of each component, so as to differentially predict reinforcement, the pigeons pecked at the signals, at rates higher than rates during the remainder of the component. When the brief signals were not differentially predictive of reinforcement, pecking in their presence decreased to near zero levels. Similar results were obtained with signals based upon colors and upon line orientations. Changes in rates of (unreinforced) pecking occurred during the signal whether pigeons responded differentially during the remainder of the component or not. Experiment II demonstrated that the presence of the signal correlated with extinction was not necessary for pecking to develop at the signal which preceded the component in which responding was intermittently reinforced. The experiments demonstrated a clear dissociation of respondent control from operant control of a response. In addition, operant behavior was shown to be relatively insensitive to differing rates of reinforcement, as compared to the sensitivity of respondent behavior to differing rates of reinforcement produced by the very same operant behavior.     

A stochastic model for test-retest correlations

A simple stochastic model is formulated in order to determine the optimal time between the first test and the second test when the test-retest method of assessing reliability is used. A forgetting process and a change in true score process are postulated. The optimal time between tests is derived by maximizing the probability that the respondent has not remembered the response on the first test and has not had a change in true score. The resulting test-retest correlation is then found to be a linear function of the true reliability of the test, where the slope of this function is the key probability of not remembering and having no change in true score. Some numerical examples and suggestions for using the results in empirical studies are given. Specific recommendations are presented for improved design and analysis of intentions data.This research was made possible by a grant from the Center for Food Policy Research, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York, 10027.     

Timing the second response in two-response avoidance.

Rats were trained on a free-operant avoidance task requiring two lever presses within R seconds, with the opportunity for each response distinguished by differing stimuli. Response latencies at a variety of response-shock intervals were found to be proportional to the time available for the response. These results are shown to be consonant with a scalar expectancy model of timing behavior.     

Response rate, latency, and resistance to change

Pigeons were trained on a multiple variable-interval/variable-interval schedule with pacing contingencies that generated high response rates in one component and low response rates in the other. Timeout periods separated the schedule components. During resistance-to-change tests, response-independent food was presented during the timeout periods, and the duration of that food presentation was varied among test sessions. Response rates in the schedule components decreased and latencies to the first response increased as a function of the duration of food presentations during the timeout. Both dependent measures changed about the same amount relative to their own baseline levels. The conclusions are that baseline response rates controlled by pacing contingencies are equally resistant to change, given equal reinforcement densities, and latency is a sensitive measure of resistance to change.