Variation, repetition, and choice

Experiment 1 investigated the controlling properties of variability contingencies on choice between repeated and variable responding. Pigeons were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules with two alternatives. In the REPEAT alternative, reinforcers in the terminal link depended on a single sequence of four responses. In the VARY alternative, a response sequence in the terminal link was reinforced only if it differed from the n previous sequences (lag criterion). The REPEAT contingency generated low, constant levels of sequence variation whereas the VARY contingency produced levels of sequence variation that increased with the lag criterion. Preference for the REPEAT alternative tended to increase directly with the degree of variation required for reinforcement. Experiment 2 examined the potential confounding effects in Experiment 1 of immediacy of reinforcement by yoking the interreinforcer intervals in the REPEAT alternative to those in the VARY alternative. Again, preference for REPEAT was a function of the lag criterion. Choice between varying and repeating behavior is discussed with respect to obtained behavioral variability, probability of reinforcement, delay of reinforcement, and switching within a sequence.     

Resurgence is greater following a return to the training context than remaining in the extinction context

The present study examined whether resurgence of a previously reinforced target response upon removing alternative reinforcement would be greater when (1) returning to the original training context (ABA context changes) versus (2) remaining in the analogue treatment context in which the alternative response was differentially reinforced (ABB context changes). Experiment 1 arranged reinforcement of button pressing with points exchangeable for money in university students. Experiment 2 arranged reinforcement of lever pressing with food for rats. Experiment 3 arranged reinforcement of responses to a touchscreen with small bites of food with children diagnosed with ASD. Overall, resurgence of target responding tended to be greater when returning to the original training context (A) than when remaining in the analogue treatment context (B). These findings suggest context changes with differential reinforcement treatments could exacerbate the recurrence of problem behavior resulting from reductions in treatment integrity through failure to reinforce appropriate behavior.     

Response–reinforcer dependency and resistance to change

The effects of the response–reinforcer dependency on resistance to change were studied in three experiments with rats. In Experiment 1, lever pressing produced reinforcers at similar rates after variable interreinforcer intervals in each component of a two‐component multiple schedule. Across conditions, in the fixed component, all reinforcers were response‐dependent; in the alternative component, the percentage of response‐dependent reinforcers was 100, 50 (i.e., 50% response‐dependent and 50% response‐independent) or 10% (i.e., 10% response‐dependent and 90% response‐independent). Resistance to extinction was greater in the alternative than in the fixed component when the dependency in the former was 10%, but was similar between components when this dependency was 100 or 50%. In Experiment 2, a three‐component multiple schedule was used. The dependency was 100% in one component and 10% in the other two. The 10% components differed on how reinforcers were programmed. In one component, as in Experiment 1, a reinforcer had to be collected before the scheduling of other response‐dependent or independent reinforcers. In the other component, response‐dependent and ‐independent reinforcers were programmed by superimposing a variable‐time schedule on an independent variable‐interval schedule. Regardless of the procedure used to program the dependency, resistance to extinction was greater in the 10% components than in the 100% component. These results were replicated in Experiment 3 in which, instead of extinction, VT schedules replaced the baseline schedules in each multiple‐schedule component during the test. We argue that the relative change in dependency from Baseline to Test, which is greater when baseline dependencies are high rather than low, could account for the differential resistance to change in the present experiments. The inconsistencies in results across the present and previous experiments suggest that the effects of dependency on resistance to change are not well understood. Additional systematic analyses are important to further understand the effects of the response–reinforcer relation on resistance to change and to the development of a more comprehensive theory of behavioral persistence.     

Rules and Self-Rules: Effects of Variation Upon Behavioral Sensitivity to Change

The Psychological Record - Four experiments compared the effects of self-rules and rules, and varied and specific schedules of reinforcement. Participants were first exposed to either several...     

Verbal mediating responses: effects on generalization of say-do correspondence and noncorrespondence

We analyzed the effects of verbal mediating responses on the acquisition and generalization of say-do correspondence and noncorrespondence. Participants were assigned to groups in which either reinforcers (feedback and tokens) were arranged for say-do correspondence and noncorrespondence, or no reinforcers were programmed. Participants in these groups were further subdivided into groups in which they were required to repeat what was said previously, were required to repeat random numbers, or no verbalizations were required. When correspondence was reinforced, repetition of what was said produced greater acquisition and generalization of correspondence. When noncorrespondence was reinforced, repetition of numbers facilitated acquisition and generalization of noncorrespondence. Verbal mediating responses interacted with contingencies of reinforcement in determining acquisition and generalization of correspondence and noncorrespondence.