Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation

The effects of two alternative sources of food delivery on the key-peck responding of pigeons were examined. Pecking was maintained by a variable-interval 3-min schedule. In the presence of this schedule in different conditions, either a variable-time 3-min schedule delivering food independently of responding or an equivalent schedule that required a minimum 2-s pause between a key peck and food delivery (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule) was added. The differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule reduced response rates more than did the variable-time schedule in most instances. The delay between a key peck and the next reinforcer consistently was longer under the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule than under the variable-time schedule. Response rates and median delay between responses and reinforcers were negatively correlated. These results contradict earlier conclusions about the behavioral effects of alternative reinforcement. They suggest that an interpretation in terms of response–reinforcer contiguity is consistent with the data.     

Molecular contingencies in schedules of intermittent punishment

In two experiments, key pecking of pigeons was maintained by a variable-interval 180-s schedule of food presentation. Conjointly, a second schedule delivered response-dependent electric shock. In the first experiment, shocks were presented according to either a variable-interval or a nondifferential interval-percentile schedule. The variable-interval shock schedule differentially delivered shocks following long interresponse times. Although the nondifferential shock schedules delivered shocks less differentially with respect to interresponse times, the two shock schedules equally reduced the relative frequency of long interresponse times. The second experiment differentially shocked long or short interresponse times in different conditions, with resulting decreases in the relative frequency of the targeted interresponse times. These experiments highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate level of analysis for the interaction of behavior and environment. Orderly relations present at one level of analysis (e.g., interresponse times) may not be revealed at other levels of analysis (e.g., overall response rate).     

Schedule interactions involving punishment with pigeons and humans

The principal aim of the present experiments was to assess whether punishment increased or decreased the rate of unpunished behavior (contrast and induction, respectively) for which reinforcement rate was held constant, with physical and nonphysical punishers (electric shock and response cost), pigeon and human subjects, signaled and unsignaled components (multiple and mixed schedules), and the presence or absence of a blackout period between components. Across the three experiments there were 20 punishment conditions. Induction was found in nine of those, less consistent response-rate reduction was found in three, contrast was found in four, and in four there was no change in responding from conditions without punishment. Contrast occurred consistently only with multiple schedules during the first exposure to electric-shock punishment. Induction and no change, however, were found with every combination of the independent variables studied. Four conclusions regarding the interactions between punished and unpunished responding emerged from the present results: (a) Both contrast and induction occurred with the reinforcement rate held constant and a blackout between components, (b) induction was more common than contrast, (c) contrast occurred only in the presence of a stimulus different from that correlated with the punisher, and (d) contrast diminished with prolonged exposure to punishment. None of the current theoretical accounts of punishment contrast can explain the present results.     

Response-independent Events In The Behavior Stream

The metaphor of the behavior stream provides a framework for studying the effects of response-independent food presentations intruded into an environment in which operant responding of pigeons was maintained by variable-interval schedules. In the first two experiments, response rates were reduced when response-independent food was intruded during the variable-interval schedule according to a concomitantly present fixed-time schedule. These reductions were not always an orderly function of the percentage of response-dependent food. Negatively accelerated patterns of key pecking across the fixed-time period occurred in Experiment 1 under the concomitant fixed-time variable-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, positively and negatively accelerated and linear response patterns occurred even though the schedules were similar to those used in Experiment 1. The variable findings in the first two experiments led to three subsequent experiments that were designed to further illuminate the controlling variables of the effects of intruded response-independent events. When the fixed and variable schedules were correlated with distinct operanda by employing a concurrent fixed-interval variable-interval schedule (Experiment 3) or with distinct discriminative stimuli (Experiments 4 and 5), negatively accelerated response patterns were obtained. Even in these latter cases, however, the response patterns were a joint function of the physical separation of the two schedules and the ratio of fixed-time or fixed-interval to variable-interval schedule food presentations. The results of the five experiments are discussed in terms of the contributions of both reinforcement variables and discriminative stimuli in determining the effects of intruding response-independent food into a stream of operant behavior.     

Response acquisition by Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) with delayed visual reinforcement

Male Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens, swam through a ring in an aquarium, breaking a photocell beam and initiating an unsignaled, resetting delay interval. Following delays of 0 s, 10 s, or 25 s, a 15-s mirror presentation released an aggressive display by the fish. Swimming through the ring increased in the absence of either a period of acclimatization to the reinforcer (analogous to magazine training when appetitive reinforcers are used) or explicit training of the response by the experimenters. Response rates were a decreasing function of delay duration. Other fish exposed to a schedule of response-independent mirror presentations failed to acquire and maintain the response. The results demonstrate the robustness and generality of the phenomenon of response acquisition with delayed reinforcement. They further qualify earlier observations about behavioral mechanisms involved in the phenomenon.     

Stimulus control of responding by response-reinforcer temporal contiguity

The stimulus properties of brief disruptions in response-reinforcer temporal contiguity were investigated using a discrete trial conditional discrimination procedure. Key pecking (nondelay) or key pecking followed by a brief interval of nonpecking (delay) in the sample component produced a stimulus change (choice component). Pecks in the choice component to one of two alternatives resulted in food or blackout, conditional upon which response requirement was met in producing the choice component. A baseline condition, in which key pecking always produced the choice component and correct choices were arranged randomly, alternated with experimental conditions that included nondelay and delay values of either 0.2, 0.5, or 1.0 sec between the last key peck and the initiation of the choice component. All subjects accurately discriminated brief temporal delays between a response and stimulus change, with choice accuracy increasing for three of four subjects as the temporal disruption in contiguity increase. Implications of the research for the study of delayed reinforcement, response-independent reinforcement, and the discrimination of causality are discussed.     

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.