The relative law of effect: effects of shock intensity on response strength in multiple schedules

Key pecking of four birds was reinforced with food according to a two-component multiple variable-interval 1-minute variable-interval 4-minute schedule. In addition, key pecking was punished by a brief shock according to a variable-interval 30-second schedule during both components of the multiple schedule. The intensity of the shock was varied. For all birds, punishment had a stronger suppressive effect on the responding maintained by the leaner food schedule, and the ratio of responding during the two components of the multiple schedule became closer to the ratio of reinforcement as shock intensity was increased, as the relative law of effect predicts. At the higher shock intensity, there was some evidence that the ratio of responses overmatched the ratio of reinforcements.     

Interactions in multiple schedules: negative induction with squirrel monkeys

In Experiment I, lever pressing by squirrel monkeys was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval, multiple variable-interval variable-interval, and multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of food presentation. Negative induction (decreased responding in the unchanged component) occurred when one component of the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule was changed to extinction. Negative induction was transient over sessions; responding in the unchanged component usually recovered to a rate similar to that under the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. Negative induction was not accompanied by consistent changes in the patterns of local responding within the unchanged component, and did not depend on whether component schedules were associated with localized (lever lights) or diffuse visual stimuli (houselights), or on whether the unchanged component was a 60- or 180-sec variable-interval schedule. In Experiment II, responding was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval and multiple variable-interval timeout schedules of food presentation. Negative induction occurred when responding declined gradually in the timeout component but not when responding declined abruptly. The nature of interactions in multiple schedules may depend on the species; negative induction was observed with squirrel monkeys under conditions similar to those that produce positive contrast with pigeons.     

Drug effects on responding maintained by stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.

The effects of pentobarbital and d-amphetamine were assessed on key pecking by pigeons under conventional single-key multiple schedules and under two-key multiple schedules in which discriminative stimuli appeared on one key (stimulus key) while pecks on a second key (constant key) produced food. Pecks on the stimulus key had no scheduled consequences. A 60-second variable-interval schedule operated in one component of each multiple schedule: either extinction or a 60-second variable-time schedule operated in the alternate component. When the alternate-component schedule was extinction, a high rate of responding was maintained in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule; responding on both keys was maintained in the variable-interval component of the two-key schedule. Pentobarbital increased responding in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule and increased stimulus-key, but not constant-key responding in that component of the two-key schedule. When the alternate-component schedule was changed to variable time, responding declined in the variable-interval component of the single-key schedule; stimulus-key responding was no longer maintained under the two-key schedule. Pentobarbital decreased responding in the variable-interval component of both schedules. With an exception, d-amphetamine only decreased responding in the variable-interval component of the single- and two-key schedules both when the alternate-component schedule was extinction and when it was variable time. The results suggest that the effects of pentobarbital, but not d-amphetamine, depend on the nature of the contingency (stimulus-reinforcer, response-reinforcer) that maintains responding.     

A molar theory of reinforcement schedules

Behavior of subjects exposed to concurrent and individual interval and ratio schedules of reinforcement may be described in terms of a set of expressions relating the value of responses to their durations, a feedback equation relating reinforcement to response duration, and the assumption that subjects allocate their time among various responses so as to maximize value.     

Delayed reinforcement of fixed-ratio performance without mediating exteroceptive conditioned reinforcement

The performance of pigeons was studied under conditions in which the completion of a fixed-ratio requirement was not contiguous with the presentation of a reinforcer. Timein and timeout periods alternated throughout the experimental sessions. Responses made by an experimental bird during the timein period were accumulated, and when a fixed-ratio requirement had been met, grain was presented to the experimental bird and a yoked control following their first response in the next timein period. Across most manipulations of the fixed-ratio requirement and of the duration of the timeout period, the response rates of the experimental birds were considerably higher than those of their controls, suggesting that the response-reinforcer dependency controlled the behavior of the experimental bird in the absence of a close temporal association between responding on the ratio schedule and reinforcer presentations.     

Variability of response location on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement

Variability of response location was studied in monkeys performing in a six-lever chamber. Fixed-ratio schedules, ranging from FR 1 to FR 300, generated a high degree of stereotypy of response location. In contrast, fixed-interval schedules of comparable reinforcement frequencies (0.06 to 4 minutes) generated much greater variability. These results failed to confirm any simple relationship between response variability and intermittence of reinforcement. Rather, variability seems to be determined by the particular characteristics of the reinforcement schedule.     

Behavioral contrast as differential time allocation

In Experiment I, hooded rats were exposed to multiple variable-interval schedules of reinforcement in which manipulanda and reinforcement magazines at opposite ends of the experimental chamber were associated with the different components. Time allocated to each component was measured by recording the time spent by the subject in the appropriate half of the chamber. Positive behavioral contrast was observed for the comparison between multiple variable-interval 30-second variable-interval 30-second and multiple variable-interval 30-second variable-interval 90-second conditions for both response frequency and time allocation measures, but not for mean local response rate (response frequency per time allocated to a component). In Experiment II, rats were exposed to multiple variable-time schedules in which reinforcement was response independent. Time allocated to each component was measured for two conditions, multiple variable-time 30-second variable-time 30-second and multiple variable-time 30-second variable-time 90-second. Positive behavioral contrast of time allocation was exhibited. The results indicated that time allocation was differentially sensitive to changes in reinforcement probability, and that behavioral contrast may result from the differential allocation of time to the different components of the multiple schedule.     

The economics of daily consumption controlling food- and water-reinforced responding

In the first experiment, two rhesus monkeys earned their entire ration of food and water during daily sessions with no provisions to ensure constant daily intakes. Two variable-interval schedules of food presentations were concurrent with one variable-interval schedule of water presentations; the maximum rate of food presentations arranged by one food schedule was varied. As the rate of food presentations was increased, the absolute level of responding on the two food schedules combined decreased, while responding on the water schedule increased. The preference for the variable food schedule compared to the other food schedule approximately matched the proportion of reinforcers obtained from it. The preference for the variable food schedule compared to the water schedule did not match, but greatly decreased, as the proportion of reinforcers from the food schedule increased. When Experiment I was replicated, with provisions to ensure constant daily intakes of food and water (Experiment II), the absolute response rates under the two food schedules combined and under the water schedule no longer changed with increases in the rate of food during the sessions. On the other hand, choice between the two food schedules remained proportional to the distribution of obtained food pellets. These results were interpreted as indicating that behavior to obtain nonsubstitutable commodities, such as food and water, is strongly controlled by the economic conditions of daily consumption, while choice between substitutable commodities is independent of these factors.     

The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules

Six pigeons were trained on multiple and concurrent schedules. The reinforcement rates were varied systematically (a) when lever pressing was required in one component and key pecking in the successive component; (b) when lever pressing was required in both multiple components; (c) when key pecking was required in both multiple components; and (d) when key pecking was required on one schedule and lever pressing was required on the concurrently-available schedule. Only the absolute level of responding was changed by different response requirements. Analyzed by the generalized matching law, performance under different response requirements resulted in a bias toward key pecking, and the measured response bias was the same in multiple and concurrent schedule arrangements. The bias in time measures obtained from concurrent schedule performance was reliably smaller than the obtained response biases. The sensitivity to reinforcement-rate changes was ordered: concurrent key-lever; multiple key-key; multiple lever-key; and, the least sensitive, multiple lever-lever. The results confirm that requirements of different topographical responses can be handled by the generalized matching law mainly in the bias parameter, but problems for this type of analysis may be caused by the changing sensitivity to reinforcement in multiple schedule performance as response requirements are changed.