Contrast and Reallocation of Extraneous Reinforcers Between Multiple‐schedule Components

Self Cite

Four pigeons responded on multiple schedules arranged on a "main" key in a two-key experimental chamber. A constant schedule component was alternated with another component that was varied over conditions. On an extra response key, conjoint schedules of reinforcement that operated in both components were arranged concurrently with the multiple schedule on the main key. On the main key, changes in reinforcement rate in the varied component were inversely related to changes in response rates in the constant component (behavioral contrast). On the extra key, some reinforcers were reallocated between components, depending on the schedules in effect on the main key in the varied component. In the varied component, the obtained rates of reinforcement on the extra key were inversely related to main-key reinforcement rate. In the constant component, extra-key reinforcer rates were positively related to main-key reinforcer rates obtained in the varied component, and were not a function of response rates on the extra key. In two comparisons, the rate at which components alternated and the value of the main-key schedule in the constant component were varied. Consistent with earlier work, long components reduced the extent of contrast. Reductions in contrast as a function of component duration were accompanied by similar reductions in the extent of reinforcer reallocation on the extra key. In the second comparison, lowering the rate of reinforcement in the constant component increased the rate at which extra-key reinforcers were obtained, reduced the extent of reinforcer reallocation, and reduced contrast. Overall, the results are consistent with the suggestion that some contrast effects are due to the changes in extraneous reinforcement during the constant component, and that manipulations of component duration, and manipulations of the rate of reinforcement in the constant component, affect contrast because they influence the extent of extraneous reinforcer reallocation.Key words: behavioral contrast, reallocation hypothesis, extraneous reinforcers, component duration, component value, multiple schedules, concurrent schedules, key peck, pigeonsBehavioral contrast refers to a change in responding in one multiple-schedule component that occurs when reinforcement conditions are varied in a second, alternated component. Specifically, positive behavioral contrast is an increase in response rate that is produced by reducing reinforcement in the alternate component. Negative contrast is the reverse; responding decreases in the constant component when reinforcement is increased in the other component. Responding in each component of a multiple schedule occurs in the context of two sources of reinforcement-reinforcement for the target response, and "extraneous" reinforcement gained by engaging The research described here was supported by grants from the University of Canterbury (1787597)

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Contrast and Reallocation of Extraneous Reinforcers as a Function of Component Duration and Baseline Rate of Reinforcement

McLean

1995

Self Cite

Background activities, induction, and behavioral allocation in operant performance

Baum

Davison

2014

In experiments on operant behavior, other activities, called "background" activities, compete with the operant activities. Herrnstein's (1970) formulation of the matching law included background reinforcers in the form of a parameter rO, but remained vague about the activities (BO) that produce rO. To gain more understanding, we analyzed data from three studies of performance with pairs of variable-interval schedules that changed frequently in the relative rate at which they produced food: Baum and Davison (2014), Belke and Heyman (1994), and Soto, McDowell, and Dallery (2005). Results sometimes deviated from the matching law, suggesting variation in rO. When rO was calculated from the matching equation, two results emerged: (a) rO is directly proportional to BO, as in a ratio schedule; and (b) rO and BO depend on the food rate, which is to say that BO consists of activities induced by food, as a phylogenetically important event. Other activities unrelated to food (BN ) correspond to Herrnstein's original conception of rO and may be included in the matching equation. A model based on Baum's (Baum, 2012) concepts of allocation, induction, and contingency explained the deviations from the matching law. In the model, operant activity B, BO, and BN competed unequally in the time allocation: B and BO both replaced BN , BO replaced lever pressing (Soto et al.), and key pecking replaced BO (Baum & Davison). Although the dependence of rO and BO on food rate changes Herrnstein's (1970) formulation, the model preserved the generalized matching law for operant activities by incorporating power-function induction.

Behavioral ephemera, difficult discriminations, and behavioral stability

Baum

2021

Every species possesses abilities for successfully interacting with its environment. These result from phylogeny. In the laboratory, one may arrange artificial conditions that thwart an organism's abilities. The result may be a “phenomenon.” With sufficient training, however, the phenomenon may prove to be ephemeral, as the organism's basic abilities reassert themselves. Pigeons respond extremely well to differences and nondifferences in rate of obtaining food. This ability may be thwarted in a variety of ways, but the results tend to be ephemeral. An example is an experiment that pitted pigeons' preference for unimpeded responding against their ability to respond to food rate. In a concurrent‐chains procedure, the terminal links were identical variable‐interval schedules, but in one terminal link, every response produced a timeout. The duration of the timeout varied, and preference varied with it, but the relation vanished with training, in keeping with the equality of food rate across the 2 terminal links. Some other examples of “phenomena” that tend to disappear with sufficient training and sufficient variation in experimental parameters are behavioral contrast, conditioned reinforcement, resistance to extinction, and suboptimal choice. These “phenomena” depend on pigeons' failing to make difficult discriminations. They appear to be behavioral ephemera.