Contrast and Autoshaping in Multiple Schedules Varying Reinforcer Rate and Duration

Hamilton, Bruce E.; Silberberg, Alan

doi:10.1901/jeab.1978.30-107

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hamilton In fairness to Hamilton and Silberberg (1978), their definition of behavioral contrast is consistent with much of the literature. It is even consistent with much of Rachlin (1973), which implicitly used each of the two definitions in different places.…”

supporting

confidence: 53%

“…According to one, interschedule, definition (e.g., Hamilton & Silberberg, 1978) min extinction (ext), mult VI 2-min VI 2-min, mult VI 2-min VI 30-sec, and mult VI 2-min VI 2-min. Positive contrast would occur if the rate of responding emitted during the constant, VI 2-min, component increased when subjects moved from the mult VI 2-min VI 2-min to the mult VI 2-min ext schedule, or from the mult VI 2-min VI 30-sec schedule to the final mult VI 2-min VI 2-min schedule.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Hamilton and Silberberg (1978) used the interschedule definition to test the additive theories of contrast (e.g., Hearst & Jenkins, 1974;Rachlin, 1973 This theory and a similar one proposed by Hearst and Jenkins (1974) implicitly use the intraschedule definition of contrast because both theories label changes in response rates in the same manner as the intraschedule definition. They do not conform to the interschedule definition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defining Behavioral Contrast for Multiple Schedules

McSweeney

Norman

1979

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two different definitions of behavioral contrast have been used for multiple schedules. One, interschedule, definition identifies contrast as changes in the rates of responding which occur when subjects move from one multiple schedule to another. The other, intraschedule, definition emphasizes changes in the rates of responding which occur relative to a baseline rate of responding. The baseline is the rate of responding emitted during a multiple schedule that supplies equal rates of reinforcement in the two components. The distinction between these two definitions is important for empirical and theoretical reasons. For example, theoretical confusion has arisen when the interschedule definition has been used to test and reject theories which implicitly define contrast by the intraschedule definition. min extinction (ext), mult VI 2-min VI 2-min, mult VI 2-min VI 30-sec, and mult VI 2-min VI 2-min. Positive contrast would occur if the rate of responding emitted during the constant, VI 2-min, component increased when subjects moved from the mult VI 2-min VI 2-min to the mult VI 2-min ext schedule, or from the mult VI 2-min VI 30-sec schedule to the final mult VI 2-min VI 2-min schedule. Both would be positive contrast because responding in the constant component increased when the rate of reinforcement obtained from the variable component decreased (either from VI 2-min to ext or from VI 30-sec to VI 2-min). Negative contrast would occur if the rate of responding emitted during the VI 2-min component decreased when subjects moved from the mult VI 2-min ext to the mult VI 2-min VI 2-min schedule or from the mult VI 2-min VI 2-min to the mult VI 2-min VI 30-sec schedule. Both decreases would be negative contrast because constant-component responding decreased when the variable rate of reinforcement increased (from ext to VI 2-min or from VI 2-min to VI 30-sec).The second, intraschedule definition (e.g., McSweeney, 1978), assesses positive and negative contrast by comparing the rates of responding emitted during component schedules which supply unequal rates of reinforcement to baseline rates of responding emitted when the components supply equal rates. The equal baseline rates of reinforcement are both iden-457 1979, 32,[457][458][459][460][461] NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER)

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 53%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining Behavioral Contrast for Multiple Schedules

McSweeney

Norman

1979

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies have reported just the opposite type of local-rate gradient, as response rates increased throughout the higher valued component and decreased throughout the lower valued component (Buck, Rothstein, & Williams, 1975;Hamilton & Silberberg, 1978;Williams, 1974Williams, , 1976aWilliams, , 1976b. In still other studies, the latter gradients have occasionally occurred in combination with evidence for local contrast, such that a brief elevation at the beginning of the higher valued component was followed by a decrease in rate and then a subsequent increase, thus producing a U-shaped gradient (Williams, 1982; also see Figure 6 of Williams, 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

The effects of stimulus similarity on different types of behavioral contrast

Williams

1988

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules with component stimuli of different degrees of similarity. In Experiment 1, a two-component schedule was used in which the two stimuli were either two line orientations or a line orientation versus a diffuse color. Reinforcement rate was varied in one component to determine the effects of stimulus similarity on different aspects of behavioral contrast. Contrast in terms of average response rates (molar contrast) was larger with less similar stimuli. Local contrast effects at the beginning of the component were larger for more similar stimuli, but these effects were more variable and did not attain statistical significance. Independent of the level of molar contrast, the local pattern of schedule interaction differed for the two levels of similarity: with more similar stimuli, the maximum degree of interaction occurred at the beginning of the components and then decreased; with less similar stimuli, the degree of interaction increased throughout the components and was at its maximum near their end. In Experiment 2, the same three stimuli were used while reinforcement rate in the middle component of a three-component sequence was varied; this isolated the effects of the preceding schedule from those of the following schedule. Contrast effects were generally greater in the target component preceding the variable schedule, and these were enhanced by less similar stimuli. Contrast in the target component following the variable schedule was manifested primarily in terms of the behavior at the beginning of the component, and these effects were inconsistently related to stimulus similarity. The functional separation of the effects of stimulus similarity on the different locations of contrast suggest that "anticipatory contrast" and "local contrast" depend upon different mechanisms, thus excluding any account of contrast solely in terms of relative rate of reinforcement.An important distinction in the study of contrast effects in free-operant schedules is that between local versus molar contrast. Molar contrast refers to the average change in response rate as a function of the change in reinforcement rate in the alternative component(s); local contrast refers to the larger than average rate changes in the early portions of the target component (immediately following the transition from the alternative schedule).

show abstract

“…In the present experiment, there were no scheduled consequences of signal-key responding. Given the generallyunstable nature of stimulus-directed responding in the topographical tagging procedure (Schwartz, Hamilton, & Silberberg, 1975) and multiple variable-time schedules (Garnzu & Schwartz, 1973;Hamilton & Silberberg, 1978), feedback may constitute an important source of stimulus control. Proprioceptive feedback is thought to control responding separated by short interresponse times (IRTs) in single-stimulus training, and dimensional control of short IRTs is thereby weak (Blough, 1969).…”

Section: Degrees Of Line-tiltmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus control of topographically tagged responding

White

Braunstein

1979

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons' responses on an operant key were reinforced according to either multiple variableinterval variable-intervalor multiple variable-intervalextinction schedules.The multiple-schedule components were signaled by line-tilt stimuli on a second key (signal key). Signal-key responses never produced reinforcement, and operant-key responses were not reinforced if they followed within 1 sec of a signal-key response. Behavioral contrast was not observed on the operant key, although there was a small, but reliable, increase in signal-key responding in the variableinterval component of the multiple variable-interval extinction condition. Generalization tests were interspersed between sessions of multiple variable-interval extinction training. Generalization gradients along the line-tilt dimension exhibited peak shift for both operant-key and signalkey responding following intradimensional (line tilt) discrimination training. Line-tilt generalization gradients following interdimensional discrimination did not exhibit peak shift. Gradients following intradimensional discrimination were sharper than gradients following interdimensional discrimination for both operant-key and signal-key responding. It was concluded that dimensional stimulus control of topographically tagged responding maintained by the stimulusreinforcer relation parallels that maintained by the response-reinforcerrelation. Catania (1973) has shown how behavior may be analyzed into its components by topographical tagging. When responding on a single manipulandum is under the control of two or more such separable classes of variables as reinforcement rate, the different sources of control may be identified by restricting the scheduled response-reinforcer relations to different manipulanda. Thus, behaviors under different sources of control are tagged according to response location. Keller (1974) has applied the topographical tagging analysis to discrimination learning in multiple schedules. In a standard two-component multiple schedule, two stimuli alternate in succession, and each is associated with an independent schedule of reinforcement. When reinforcement rates in the components differ, behavior is under the control of two contingencies: a differential response-reinforcer contingency, which results from the fact that response-contingent reinforcement occurs at different rates in the components; and a differential stimulus-reinforcer contingency, which is created by the differing associations between discriminative stimuli and reinforcement rates. There is considerable evidence that both contingencies interact in maintaining responding on a single manipulandum in multiple schedules (Schwartz Gamzu, 1977). For example, if the responsereinforcer relation is removed and a differential stimulus-reinforcer relation is established by associating different rates of response-independent food presentation with the different stimuli, higher response rates are observed in the component associated with the higher food density (Gamzu & Schwartz, 1973). In pigeons...

show abstract

Contrast and Autoshaping in Multiple Schedules Varying Reinforcer Rate and Duration

Cited by 16 publications

References 48 publications

Defining Behavioral Contrast for Multiple Schedules

Defining Behavioral Contrast for Multiple Schedules

The effects of stimulus similarity on different types of behavioral contrast

Stimulus control of topographically tagged responding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About