Disruption of Responding Maintained by Conditioned Reinforcement: Alterations in Response-Conditioned-Reinforcer Relations

Abstract

An observing procedure was used to investigate the effects of alterations in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations on observing. Pigeons responded to produce schedule-correlated stimuli paired with the availability of food or extinction. The contingency between observing responses and conditioned reinforcement was altered in three experiments. In Experiment 1, after a contingency was established in baseline between the observing response and conditioned reinforcement, it was removed and the schedule-correlated stimuli were presented independently of responding according to a variable-time schedule. The variable-time schedule was constructed such that the rate of stimulus presentations was yoked from baseline. The removal of the observing contingency reliably reduced rates of observing. In Experiment 2, resetting delays to conditioned reinforcement were imposed between observing responses and the schedule-correlated stimuli they produced. Delay values of 0, 0.5, 1, 5, and 10 s were examined. Rates of observing varied inversely as a function of delay value. In Experiment 3, signaled and unsignaled resetting delays between observing responses and schedule-correlated stimuli were compared. Baseline rates of observing were decreased less by signaled delays than by unsignaled delays. Disruptions in response-conditioned-reinforcer relations produce similar behavioral effects to those found with primary reinforcement.

Combinations of Response‐dependent and Response‐independent Schedule‐correlated Stimulus Presentation in an Observing Procedure

“…Specifically, decreases in the dependency ratio decreased rates of responding on the observing key. This result extends the findings of Lattal (1974) to behavior maintained by conditioned reinforcement and is consistent with the findings of Lieving et al (2006). Podlesnik and Shahan (2008) conducted two experiments that bear some similarity to ours in that they disrupted the dependency between responding and a primary reinforcer whereas we disrupted the dependency between responding and the presentation of schedule-correlated stimuli (conditioned reinforcers).…”

“…One might also ask whether responseindependent delivery of conditioned stimuli has similar effects on behavior maintained by the presentation of conditioned stimuli. To address this question, Lieving, Reilly, and Lattal (2006) used an observing-response procedure in which key pecks produced food and treadle presses produced food-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 1, treadle presses during VI food components changed the food-key stimulus for 5 s to a color previously correlated with the availability of food.…”

Effects of Response-Signal Temporal Separation on Behavior Maintained Under Temporally Defined Schedules of Delayed Signaled Reinforcement

“…The results also replicate the findings produced by Williams et al (1990) using different experimental procedures and Williams (1999), using a two-component chained schedule, as well as results produced using four-component chained schedules recently published by Bejarano and Hackenberg (2007). The present findings also agree with data produced by Lieving, Reilly, and Lattal (2006) using an observing response. These scientists exposed experienced pigeons to multiple schedules where a food-correlated luminous stimulus could be produced by treadle pressing and hopper access was produced by key pecking.…”

The generality of nicotine as a reinforcer enhancer in rats: effects on responding maintained by primary and conditioned reinforcers and resistance to extinction

“…To investigate the generality of the reinforcer-enhancing account of nicotine, Raiff and Dallery (2006) employed an observing response procedure, which has been used to examine conditioned reinforcement (e.g., Dinsmoor et al 1972;Lieving et al 2006;Shahan et al 2006). The first part of the procedure involves illuminating one stimulus (e.g., continuous houselight; S+) during periods of food availability and a different stimulus (e.g., blinking houselight; S−) during periods of extinction (i.e., no food availability).…”