Allocation of Complex, Sequential Operants on Multiple and Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement

Abstract

Pigeons could produce food by pecking exactly four times on each of two keys, in any order. In the first experiment, these response sequences were reinforced on a series of multiple schedules of variableinterval reinforcement. In the second experiment, these response sequences were reinforced on a series of concurrent schedules of reinforcement. In both experiments, highly stereotyped response sequences developed. If these response sequences were treated as individual responses, the resulting data conformed to what is typically reported in studies of multiple and concurrent schedules involving individual responses. For example, behavioral contrast was observed with the multiple schedules, and matching was observed with the concurrent schedules. However, schedule manipulation had no effect on within-sequence characteristics of responses like accuracy, stereotypy, or rate. These data constitute further evidence that response sequences can become functional behavioral units.Key words: multiple schedules, concurrent schedules, complex operants, stereotyped behavior, pigeons Schwartz (1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1982a, 1982bSchwartz & Reilly, 1983, 1985 has reported a series of experiments on the development and maintenance of a complex, sequential operant. These experiments have been based upon procedures adapted from Vogel and Annau (1973). Pigeons could produce food by pecking each of two response keys exactly four times, in any order. At the beginning of a trial, the top, left light in a 5 by 5 matrix of lights was illuminated. Each left-key peck moved the illuminated light across one position, and each right-key peck moved it down one position. When the bottom, right light was illuminated (four pecks on each key), reinforcement was delivered. A fifth peck on either key before a fourth on the other terminated the sequence without reinforcement. Schwartz found, as had Vogel and Annau, that although many different successful sequences were possible, for each pigeon one particular sequence became dominant, sometimes occurring on more than 90% of all trials.Given that such stereotyped sequences develop, one might ask whether the sequences become integrated behavioral units. For example, such units might be resistant to disruption by environmental challenges. Schwartz (1981b) explored this possibility by exposing the sequences to extinction. He found that in pigeons with extensive training on the sequence task, extinction had almost no effect on sequence stereotypy. Given that the animals responded at all in extinction, they produced the same dominant sequence as they had during reinforcement, with roughly the same relative frequencies across sequences. In addition, the temporal properties of response sequences were not disrupted by extinction. Extinction certainly resulted in fewer responses per minute. However, when the temporal pattern of responding was analyzed into two components-latency (the time to begin a sequence from trial onset) and response time (the time to complete a sequence once it was begun)-it turned out tha...

Impulsivity in Students With Serious Emotional Disturbance: The Interactive Effects of Reinforcer Rate, Delay, and Quality

“…She may also have developed stereotyped response sequences that operated as functional behavioral units (Schwartz, 1986) and that were resistant to change (Nevin, Mandell, & Atak, 1983). She tended to respond exclusively or near-exclusively to the VI 30-s schedule when the delay to reinforcer access was short, and exclusively to the leaner schedule (producing immediate reinforcer access) when the delay to reinforcer access on the richer schedule was longest.…”

The distribution of response bout lengths and its sensitivity to differential reinforcement

“…Bouts may also have behavioral-unit like properties (Brackney et al, 2011;Shull et al, 2001). If this is the case, bouts of different lengths may belong to different response classes, and the frequency of bouts of different lengths may have some correspondence to the frequency at which they are reinforced (Bach a-M endez, Reid, & Mendoza-Soylovna, 2007;Schwartz, 1986;Shimp, 1982). Unfortunately, the differential reinforcement of specific bout lengths cannot be explicitly tested due to the probabilistic nature of starts and ends of individual bouts (for extended discussions of bout detection methods, see Brackney et al, 2011;Cheung et al, 2012;Shull et al, 2001Shull et al, , 2002.…”

Resurgence of Integrated Behavioral Units

“…In his search for the fundamental units of behavior, Skinner (1935) defined a response unit as a functional class of events subject to control by reinforcing stimuli. A lever press could become a behavioral unit, but so could interresponse times (IRTs) (e.g., Morse, 1966;Platt, 1973;Zeiler, 1977) and integrated sequences of simple responses (e.g., Fetterman & Stubbs, 1982;Grayson & Wasserman, 1979;Hawkes & Shimp, 1975;Reid, Chadwick, Dunham, & Miller, 2001;Schwartz, 1981Schwartz, , 1982Schwartz, , 1986Shimp, 1976Shimp, , 1979. Zeiler (1977) identified three different kinds of response units that can be distinguished: formal, conditionable, and theoretical units.…”