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.     

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.     

Effects of delayed conditioned reinforcement in chain schedules.

The contingency between responding and stimulus change on a chain variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s, variable-interval 33-s schedule was weakened by interposing 3-s delays between either the first and second or the second and third links. No stimulus change signaled the delay interval and responses could occur during it, so the obtained delays were often shorter than the scheduled delay. When the delay occurred after the initial link, initial-link response rates decreased by an average of 77% with no systematic change in response rates in the second or third links. Response rates in the second link decreased an average of 59% when the delay followed that link, again with little effect on response rates in the first or third links. Because the effect of delaying stimulus change was comparable to the effect of delaying primary reinforcement in a simple variable-interval schedule, and the effect of the unsignaled delay was specific to the link in which the delay occurred, the results provide strong evidence for the concept of conditioned reinforcement.     

Superstitious behavior in humans

Twenty undergraduate students were exposed to single response-independent schedules of reinforcer presentation, fixed-time or variable-time, each with values of 30 and 60 s. The reinforcer was a point on a counter accompanied by a red lamp and a brief buzzer. Three color signals were presented, without consistent relation to reinforcer or to the subjects' behavior. Three large levers were available, but the subjects were not asked to perform any particular behavior. Three of the 20 subjects developed persistent superstitious behavior. One engaged in a pattern of lever-pulling responses that consisted of long pulls after a few short pulls; the second touched many things in the experimental booth; the third showed biased responding called sensory superstition. However, most subjects did not show consistent superstitious behavior. Reinforcers can operate effectively on human behavior even in the absence of a response-reinforcer contingency and can, in some cases, shape stable superstitious patterns. However, superstitious behavior is not a consistent outcome of exposure of human subjects to response-independent reinforcer deliveries.     

Discriminability between alternatives in a switching-key concurrent schedule

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate between two intensities of white light in a symbolic matching-to-sample procedure. These stimuli were then used to signal which schedule was available on the main key in a switching-key concurrent schedule. The concurrent schedules led to a symbolic matching-to-sample phase in which the subject identified the concurrent schedule to which it last responded before a reinforcer could be obtained. The concurrent schedules were varied across conditions. Discriminability, measured during the symbolic matching-to-sample performance, was high throughout and did not differ across the two procedures. Performance in the concurrent schedules was like that typically obtained using these schedules. Delays were then arranged between completion of the concurrent schedules and presentations of the symbolic matching-to-sample phase. A series of conditions with an intervening delay of 10 s showed that both concurrent-schedule performance and symbolic matching-to-sample performance were affected by the delay in a similar way; that is, choice responding was closer to indifference.     

The Effect of Negative Incentives in Serial Learning: VII. Theory of Punishment

Eighty three-, four-, five-, and six-year-old boys and girls were presented with experimental conditions where context, transformational complexity, and verbal cue were varied, Two experimental tasks, a perceptually Concrete and an Abstract task, were included and Ss were assigned to a Verbal Cue or a Nonverbal Cue condition. All Ss responded to both the present progressive and the past tenses. Results revealed significant effects of the Age and Tense factors, and improved performance on Comprehension over Production. Younger children made fewer overall errors than older ones. Ss performed better on the present progressive than on the past tense on the perceptually Concrete task, while the reverse was true on the Abstract task. These findings demonstrate that language performance is the result of a complex interrelationship between transformational complexity and the perceptual properties of linguistic structures.     

Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements.

Recent research findings suggest that reinforcing stimuli may be differentially effective as response requirements increase. We extended this line of research by evaluating responding under increasing schedule requirements via progressive‐ratio schedules and behavioral economic analyses. The differential effectiveness of preferred stimuli in treating destructive behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement also was examined. Results showed that one of two stimuli was associated with more responding under increasing schedule requirements for the 4 participants. Furthermore, stimuli associated with more responding under increasing schedule requirements generally were more effective in treating destructive behavior than stimuli associated with less responding. These data suggest that progressive‐ratio schedules and behavioral economic analyses may be useful for developing a new technology for reinforcer identification. From a clinical perspective, these results suggest that two reinforcers may be similarly effective for low‐effort tasks and differentially effective for high‐effort tasks.