The operant conditioning of response variability: Free-operant versus discrete-response procedures

The operant conditioning of response variability under free-operant and discrete-response procedures was investigated. Two pigeons received food only if their pattern of four pecks on two response keys differed from the patterns emitted on the two immediately preceding trials. Under the free-operant procedure, the keys remained illuminated and operative throughout each trial. There was little variability in the response patterns that resulted, and the pigeons received fewer than one third of the available reinforcers. Under the discrete-response procedure, a brief timeout period followed each response. Variability increased under this procedure, and the pigeons obtained three fourths of the available reinforcers. Previous successes and failures to produce response variability may have been due to the use or failure to use, respectively, a discrete-response procedure. Respondent effects inherent in the free-operant procedure may encourage the development of response stereotypy and, in turn, prevent the development of response variability.     

Delayed temporal discrimination in pigeons: A comparison of two procedures

A within-subjects comparison was made of pigeons' performance on two temporal discrimination procedures that were signaled by differently colored keylight samples. During stimulus trials, a peck on the key displaying a slanted line was reinforced following short keylight samples, and a peck on the key displaying a horizontal line was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of the location of the stimuli on those two choice keys. During position trials, a peck on the left key was reinforced following short keylight samples and a peck on the right key was reinforced following long keylight samples, regardless of which line stimulus appeared on the correct key. Thus, on stimulus trials, the correct choice key could not be discriminated prior to the presentation of the test stimuli, whereas on position trials, the correct choice key could be discriminated during the presentation of the sample stimulus. During Phase 1, with a 0-s delay between sample and choice stimuli, discrimination learning was faster on position trials than on stimulus trials for all 4 birds. During Phase 2, 0-, 0.5-, and 1.0-s delays produced differential loss of stimulus control under the two tasks for 2 birds. Response patterns during the delay intervals provided some evidence for differential mediation of the two delayed discriminations. These between-task differences suggest that the same processes may not mediate performance in each.     

Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.     

A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality

Assuming a nonparametric family of item response theory models, a theory-based procedure for testing the hypothesis of unidimensionality of the latent space is proposed. The asymptotic distribution of the test statistic is derived assuming unidimensionality, thereby establishing an asymptotically valid statistical test of the unidimensionality of the latent trait. Based upon a new notion of dimensionality, the test is shown to have asymptotic power 1. A 6300 trial Monte Carlo study using published item parameter estimates of widely used standardized tests indicates conservative adherence to the nominal level of significance and statistical power averaging 81 out of 100 rejections for examinee sample sizes and psychological test lengths often incurred in practice.The referees' comments were remarkably detailed and greatly enhanced the writeup and sensitized the author to certain pertinent issues. Discussions with Fritz Drasgow, Lloyd Humphreys, Dennis Jennings, Brian Junker, Robert Linn, Ratna Nandakumar, and Robin Shealy were also very useful.This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research under grant N00014-84-K-0186; NR 150-533, and by the National Science Foundation under grant DMS 85-03321.     

Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory

Three methods for estimating reliability are studied within the context of nonparametric item response theory. Two were proposed originally by Mokken (1971) and a third is developed in this paper. Using a Monte Carlo strategy, these three estimation methods are compared with four classical lower bounds to reliability. Finally, recommendations are given concerning the use of these estimation methods.The authors are grateful for constructive comments from the reviewers and from Charles Lewis.     

Varying response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule

Three experiments describe the effects of manipulating the frequency of response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule. The schedule arranged that a reinforcer was delivered after 30 s provided at least one response had occurred; otherwise the next cycle started immediately. In Experiment 1, this schedule produced the typical pause–respond–pause pattern, with most responses at mid-interval; and, when a limited number of contiguities between responses and food delivery were added, the pattern became more like the monotonic scallop seen on fixed-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, the schedule was initially presented with an additional contingency that allowed contiguity on every trial. Fixed-interval-like behavior occurred and tended to persist as contiguities were gradually eliminated. In Experiment 3, the recycling conjunctive schedule alternated with a condition in which a large number of contiguities occurred. The pause–respond–pause pattern and fixed-interval-like performance occurred with few or many contiguities, respectively. The results of all three experiments illustrate how contiguity interacts with a small number of other variables to determine performance on interval schedules and illuminate previous findings with fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules.     

Units of analysis and kinetic structure of behavioral repertoires

It is suggested that molar streams of behavior are constructed of various arrangements of three elementary constituents (elicited, evoked, and emitted response classes). An eight-cell taxonomy is elaborated as a framework for analyzing and synthesizing complex behavioral repertoires based on these functional units. It is proposed that the local force binding functional units into a smoothly articulated kinetic sequence arises from temporally arranged relative response probability relationships. Behavioral integration is thought to reflect the joint influence of the organism's hierarchy of relative response probabilities, fluctuating biological states, and the arrangement of environmental and behavioral events in time.     

A taxonomy of item response models

A number of models for categorical item response data have been proposed in recent years. The models appear to be quite different. However, they may usefully be organized as members of only three distinct classes, within which the models are distinguished only by assumptions and constraints on their parameters. “Difference models” are appropriate for ordered responses, “divide-by-total” models may be used for either ordered or nominal responses, and “left-side added” models are used for multiple-choice responses with guessing. The details of the taxonomy and the models are described in this paper. The present study was supported in part by two postdoctoral fellowships awarded to Lynne Steinberg: an Educational Testing Service Postdoctoral Fellowship at ETS, Princeton, NJ and an NIMH Individual National Research Service Award at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Helpful comments by the editor and three anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.     

Induction by reinforcer schedules.

Traditional strategies for determining whether a reinforcer schedule enhances the occurrence of an activity are reviewed and critically evaluated. A basic assumption underlying these strategies is that it is possible to isolate the effect of reinforcer intermittency on schedule induction. It is concluded that this is not, in fact, possible. An alternative approach is proposed that emphasizes the inductive effects of the reinforcer schedule as a unit and the effects of particular aspects of the reinforcer schedule (e.g., interreinforcer interval, repetition of the reinforcer, reinforcer magnitude).     

Behavior regulation and learned performance: Some misapprehensions and disagreements

The behavior-regulation approach to learned performance has been the subject of misapprehension and disagreement concerning: (1) the nature and importance of behavior regulation, (2) the definition and role of behavioral set-points, (3) the relation of optimal schedule performance to behavioral set-points, and (4) the question of whether deviations from total responding or from response patterns are the primary determinant of molar responding under schedule constraint. After clarifying the nature and role of behavior regulation and set-points, this paper shows that the data used to question optimal schedule performance (Allison, 1981a) actually strongly support the general behavior-regulation approach. These data also indicate a role for response-pattern set-points in determining schedule behavior, but contradict the hypothesis that deviations from response-pattern characteristics are the primary determinant of molar schedule effects.