Correspondence between saying and doing: teaching children to share and praise

Five small groups of preschool children were taught to share and praise by the modelling of these behaviors and reinforcement of their reports of sharing and praising. Experiment I demonstrated that modelling and reinforcement of any (true or untrue) reports of sharing, and then of praising, promptly increased reports of the corresponding behaviors. Modelling and reinforcement for true reports of each behavior increased both reporting and actual behavior. Experiment II showed that both reported and actual sharing and praising may be increased by modelling and reinforcement for true reports of the target behavior, without previous reinforcement for any (true or untrue) reports of those behaviors. Sharing, but not praising, generalized to a second setting. Experiment III replicated the results of Experiment II for sharing and praising, and demonstrated similar success in increasing a third behavior, specific praising. In general, these experiments show that developing correspondence between children's reports of behavior and actual behavior may be an efficient means of increasing prosocial responses.     

A comparison of pecking generated by serial, delay, and trace autoshaping procedures

Pigeons were exposed to serial, delay, and trace autoshaping procedures. In Experiment I, all conditioned stimuli (CSs) were changes in illumination of the response key. The number of trials to acquisition of the keypeck increased from serial, to 4-sec delay, 8-sec delay, and 8-sec trace procedures, in that order. In Experiment II, which used a longer intertrial interval, trials to criterion increased from 8-sec delay, to 28-sec delay, 8-sec trace, and 28-sec trace procedures, in that order. In Experiment III, two groups received serial procedures in which the first CS was either a tone or a houselight, and the second was a keylight. The tone group acquired the key peck more rapidly than the houselight group. Early in conditioning in these experiments, and when the conditioned stimulus was a change in the keylight, there was a short latency to the onset of pecking and pecking was directed at the CS. After extensive conditioning, or when the CS was relatively diffuse, pecking still occurred, but had a longer latency and was not reliably directed toward the conditioned stimulus.     

Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules with unequal reinforcer durations for the two responses. The schedules arranged on the two keys were kept equal while they were varied in absolute size. As the overall reinforcer rate was increased, both response-allocation and time-allocation measures of choice showed a trend toward indifference, and measures of sensitivity to reinforcer-duration ratios significantly decreased. Recent reports have shown that the generalized matching law cannot describe the changes in behavior allocation under constant delay-, duration-, or rate-ratios when changes are made in the absolute levels of each of these variables. The present results complement these findings by demonstrating that the concatenated generalized matching law cannot describe the interactions of two reinforcer variables on behavior allocation.     

Some effects of response-correlated increases in reinforcer magnitude on human behavior

After training under short or long fixed-interval schedules, humans responded under a modified fixed-interval schedule in which magnitude of reinforcement (X or 2X) was minimally correlated with response frequency. Response frequencies that equaled or exceeded a minimum response criterion were followed by the larger reinforcer at the end of the interval; otherwise, the smaller reinforcer was delivered. The modified schedule alternated with the baseline schedule across conditions. In a control condition, the reinforcer magnitudes produced by control subjects were yoked to those of experimental subjects. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding. In addition to the baseline and modified fixed-interval schedules used in Experiment 1, subjects in Experiment 2 also responded under a second modified fixed-interval contingency in which increases in reinforcer magnitude were more highly correlated with response frequency. Experimental subjects, but not control subjects, showed increased responding under both procedures. Direct comparison of these two procedures showed that the high-correlation procedure produced greater increases in responding than did the low-correlation procedure.     

Determinants of pausing under variable-ratio schedules: Reinforcer magnitude, ratio size, and schedule configuration

Pigeons pecked a key under two-component multiple variable-ratio schedules that offered 8-s or 2-s access to grain. Phase 1 assessed the effects of differences in reinforcer magnitude on postreinforcement pausing, as a function of ratio size. In Phase 2, postreinforcement pausing and the first five interresponse times in each ratio were measured as a function of differences in reinforcer magnitude under equal variable-ratio schedules consisting of different configurations of individual ratios. Rates were also calculated exclusive of postreinforcement pause times in both phases. The results from Phase 1 showed that as ratio size increased, the differences in pausing educed by unequal reinforcer magnitudes also increased. The results of Phase 2 showed that the effects of reinforcer magnitude on pausing and IRT durations were a function of schedule configuration. Under one configuration, in which the smallest ratio was a fixed-ratio 1, pauses were unaffected by magnitude but the first five interresponse times were affected. Under the other configuration, in which the smallest ratio was a fixed-ratio 7, pauses were affected by reinforcer magnitude but the first five interresponse times were not. The effect of each configuration seemed to be determined by the value of the smallest individual ratio. Rates calculated exclusive of postreinforcement pause times were, in general, directly related to reinforcer magnitude, and the relation was shown to be a function of schedule configuration.     

Probability and delay in commitment

In the first stage of a two-stage choice, human subjects chose between probabilistic access to a second choice (between a small high-probability reward and a large low-probability reward) and commitment to the large low-probability reward. When confronted with the second-stage choice, subjects strongly preferred the small high-probability reward. When the first-stage probability (of access to the second stage) was high, subjects strongly preferred the path leading to the choice in the second stage. But when the first-stage probability was low, subjects committed themselves to the large low-probability reward. These results parallel those obtained by Rachlin and Green (1972) with pigeons and constitute some evidence that probabilities may be interpreted as delays.     

Within-session meal-size effects on induced drinking.

As a control for the effects of session duration and hunger on the relation between food magnitude and induced drinking, four food-deprived rats were exposed to a variable-time 50-s schedule of food delivery in which the size of each food delivery varied randomly within sessions. Food-related behavior and schedule-induced drinking per opportunity were examined as functions of meal size and postfood time. All rats showed an inverted-U-shaped relation between drinking per opportunity and meal size. This relation was caused by variation in the percentage of intervals that contained drinking and by variation in the number of drinking bouts per interval, rather than by bout duration or by the amount of drinking within those intervals that actually contained drinking. Head-in-feeder time increased linearly with meal size. Schedule-induced drinking was entrained by food delivery in 3 of 4 subjects; the entrainment was due to regulation of the starting time of each drinking bout rather than to regulation of bout duration.     

Sensitivity to reinforcer duration in a self-control procedure

In a concurrent-chains procedure, pigeons' responses on left and right keys were followed by reinforcers of different durations at different delays following the choice responses. Three pairs of reinforcer delays were arranged in each session, and reinforcer durations were varied over conditions. In Experiment 1 reinforcer delays were unequal, and in Experiment 2 reinforcer delays were equal. In Experiment 1 preference reversal was demonstrated in that an immediate short reinforcer was chosen more frequently than a longer reinforcer delayed 6 s from the choice, whereas the longer reinforcer was chosen more frequently when delays to both reinforcers were lengthened. In both experiments, choice responding was more sensitive to variations in reinforcer duration at overall longer reinforcer delays than at overall shorter reinforcer delays, independently of whether fixed-interval or variable-interval schedules were arranged in the choice phase. We concluded that preference reversal results from a change in sensitivity of choice responding to ratios of reinforcer duration as the delays to both reinforcers are lengthened.     

DOES CONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT STRENGTHEN OPERANT BEHAVIOR?

In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained to peck keys with equal food-reinforcement schedules in components that ended with either noncontingent or contingent transitions to a third component with a five-fold richer schedule. Response rates were higher in the initial component with contingent transitions, but resistance to prefeeding or extinction was not consistently greater. Experiment 2 also included noncontingent or contingent transitions to a signaled period of nonreinforcement. There was no effect of the contingency on transitions to nonreinforcement, but the difference in response rates maintained by contingent versus noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule was replicated. In addition, response rates were higher in components that preceded nonreinforcement than in components that preceded the richer schedule. However, resistance to extinction was greater for noncontingent transitions to the richer schedule than to nonreinforcement, implicating stimulus–reinforcer relations in the determination of resistance to change. Resistance to change was also somewhat greater for noncontingent than for contingent transitions to the richer schedule. The latter result, together with the results of Experiment 1 and related research, suggests that response-contingent reinforcement does not increase resistance to change.     

On the distinction between open and closed economies.

Open and closed economies have been assumed to produce opposite relations between responding and the programmed density of reward (the amount of reward divided by its cost). Experimental procedures that are treated as open economies typically dissociate responding and total reward by providing supplemental income outside the experimental session; procedures construed as closed economies do not. In an open economy responding is assumed to be directly related to reward density, whereas in a closed economy responding is assumed to be inversely related to reward density. In contrast to this predicted correlation between response-reward relations and type of economy, behavior regulation theory predicts both direct and inverse relations in both open and closed economies. Specifically, responding should be a bitonic function of reward density regardless of the type of economy and is dependent only on the ratio of the schedule terms rather than on their absolute size. These predictions were tested by four experiments in which pigeons' key pecking produced food on fixed-ratio and variable-interval schedules over a range of reward magnitudes and under several open- and closed-economy procedures. The results better supported the behavior regulation view by showing a general bitonic function between key pecking and food density in all conditions. In most cases, the absolute size of the schedule requirement and the magnitude of reward had no effect; equal ratios of these terms produced approximately equal responding.