STIMULUS EFFECTS ON LOCAL PREFERENCE: STIMULUS—RESPONSE CONTINGENCIES,STIMULUS—FOOD PAIRING,AND STIMULUS—FOOD CORRELATION

Four pigeons were trained in a procedure in which concurrent‐schedule food ratios changed unpredictably across seven unsignaled components after 10 food deliveries. Additional green‐key stimulus presentations also occurred on the two alternatives, sometimes in the same ratio as the component food ratio, and sometimes in the inverse ratio. In eight experimental conditions, we varied the contingencies surrounding these additional stimuli: In two conditions, stimulus onset and offset were noncontingent; in another two, stimulus onset was noncontingent, and offset was response contingent. In four conditions, both stimulus onset and offset were contingent, and in two of these conditions the stimulus was simultaneously paired with food delivery. Sensitivity to component food ratios was significantly higher when stimulus onset was response contingent compared to when it was noncontingent. Choice changes following food delivery were similar in all eight conditions. Choice changes following stimuli were smaller than those following food, and directionally were completely determined by the food‐ratio:stimulus‐ratio correlation, not by the stimulus contingency nor by whether the stimulus was paired with food or not. These results support the idea that conditional reinforcers may best be viewed as signals for next‐food location rather than as stimuli that have acquired hedonic value, at least when the signals are differential with respect to future conditions.