Effects of different acquisition procedures on response variability

Stokes, Patricia D.; Mechner, Francis; Balsam, Peter D.

doi:10.3758/bf03199429

Cited by 24 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ANOVAs with data set (empirical vs. simulated) as a factor revealed a significantly higher empirical than simulated MaxAut value for all conditions and blocks [Fs(1,22 The collective data and analyses suggest that, as a result of variability-contingentpositive feedback, the subjects in Condition C-E increasingly responded in a manner that was favorable for meeting the variability criteria. This result is consistent with previous research with pigeons, rats, and humans, showing that behavioral variability is sensitive to contingent reinforcement or positive feedback (e.g., Machado, 1989;Neuringer, 1986;Neuringer, Deiss, & Imig, 2000;Page & Neuringer, 1985;Ross & Neuringer, 2002;Stokes et al, 1999). As in previous studies, the high MetVar values were achieved at least partly by a relatively even use of the various response alternatives, as reflected in a high U value.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response stability and variability induced in humans by different feedback contingencies

Maes

2003

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a fairly large number of studies, researchers have examined the effects of extinctionon conditionedresponding in classical and operant conditioningprocedures. Neuringer, Kornell, and Olufs (2001) found evidence in this literature, which will not be reviewed here again, of two opposing effects: response stability and response variability. An example of each of these effects can be found in the experiments reported by Neuringer et al. (2001). In their first experiment, rats were food-reinforced for emitting variable sequencesof responses, using one, two, or three of three different operanda: two levers (L and R) and a key (K). Each response sequence that could be reinforced consisted of three responses. There are a total of 27 possible threeresponse sequences involvingone, two, or three operand(a) (e.g., LLL, LLR, or LRK). Reinforcement was given for a sequence only if its relative frequency was less than or equal to .05. The purpose of this reinforcement schedule was to induce behavioral variability, and the question of major interest was whether, and how, response variability would change in a subsequent phase without reinforcement (extinction). The authors found evidence of behavioral stability, in that the ordering of the probabilities of the 27 possible sequences during extinction did not differ much from the ordering observed during reinforcement. The most preferred sequences during reinforcement were still preferred the most during extinction; the same was true for the least preferred sequences. However, interestingly, at the same time, the relative frequencies, expressed as a ratio that was computed by dividing the probability during extinction by the probability during reinforcement, of the least preferred sequences increased. This is indicative of increased response variability. This mix of stability and variability was also obtained in two further experiments in which extinctionwas preceded either by responseindependentnoncontingentreinforcement or by consistent reinforcement of only one single sequence. Neuringer et al. (2001) argued that the mix of stability and variability makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. On the one hand, stability implies continuationof behavior that was successful in the past; on the other hand, variability ensures the occurrence of (relatively) new behavior that, potentially, may be more successful than previous behavior.The aim of the present experiments was to evaluate the balance between response stability and variability in humans, rather than in rats, and to examine more than one type of contingency change. As will be outlined below, the type of contingency transition may be expected to be important with respect to the extent of behavioral stability and variability. More generally, data on the conditions that are or are not conducive to the occurrence of behavioral stability and variability (adaptive or not) may be relevant to applied settings, such as educational and therapeutic contexts.In the present experiments, I used a task that was modeled after that em...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…In principle, the variability criteria used in the experiments of Neuringer et al (2001) and those used in the present experiments can be satisfied using different strategies (see also, e.g., Stokes, Mechner, & Balsam, 1999). One possibility is to behave (quasi-) randomly, as indeed was observed in rats in a similar task (Page & Neuringer, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response stability and variability induced in humans by different feedback contingencies

Maes

2003

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main difference between the human and rat results was that levels ofvariability in the human control subjects (those experiencing only probabilistic reinforcement) decreased significantly across the experiment, whereas the decrease in the control rats did not reach a significant level, but the two functions were quite similar. Thus, behavioral variability was sensitive to its consequences in both rats and people, results consistent with those from the literature (Machado, 1989;Neuringer, 1986;Page & Neuringer, 1985;Stokes, Mechner, & Balsam, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Comparing choices and variations in people and rats: Two teaching experiments

Neuringer

Deiss

Imig

2000

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two pairs of experiments enabled students to compare their own operant behaviors with those of rats. The students played computer games for points, and the rats pressed levers for food. The first pair of experiments showed that, under concurrent schedules of reinforcement, relative frequencies of choices between two alternatives increased linearly in rats and people as functions of relative frequencies of reinforcement, with similar biases and undermatching observed in both species. The second pair of experiments showed that behavioral variability was controlled by reinforcers contingent on variability,this again true for both species. These experiments helped demonstrate the relevance of animal operant research to an explanation of human operant behavior.Introductory psychology at Reed College is a broadly based year-long course combining lectures, conferences, and research in all major areas of psychology. One section at the beginning of the second semester focused on operant behavior. An issue for students is whether studying animals is relevant to an explanation ofhuman actions. To enable students to compare human and rat behaviors, we developed two pairs ofprocedures in which rats pressing levers for food paralleled students playing computer games for points. Prior to playing the games, the students were not informed ofthe relationship between the rat and human procedures.We wanted the students to accomplish three goals: to study the influences of reinforcement contingencies, to compare their own behaviors to those ofrats, and, because the students were themselves subjects, to evaluate how their subjective evaluations of the contingencies were related to the actual contingencies. During 30 years ofteaching introductory psychology, the senior author has found no better way to demonstrate the importance of studying the operant responses of animal models. EXPERIMENT lA Concurrent Choice in RatsThe study of choices by animals constitutes a major area of research (Williams, 1988). Under the commonly This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation to A.N. The authors thank Gene Olson for excellent animal care and a helpful reading of the manuscript. All programs were written in True Basic and can be obtained (for use with Macintosh computers) from the authors. The human programs can be downloaded from ftp://ftp.reed.eduJreed/projects/neuringer/. The rat programs require specialized interfaces and operant equipment. Correspondence and requests for the two computer games (for use with Macintosh computers) should be addressed to A. Neuringer, Psychology Department, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202 (e-mail: allen_neuringer@reed.edu).used "concurrent reinforcement" procedure, a rat or pigeon is presented with two alternatives, each associated with a different reinforcement rate. A matching relationship is sometimes observed, showing that the proportion of choices between the two operanda (e.g., left and right levers) equals the proportion of reinforcements obtained for responding on ...

show abstract

“…The order of training was reversed for a second group; "any" first and then right only. Behavior sequences were more variable in the right-only-first group, leading Stokes (1995) to conclude that early constraints lead to high variability (see also Stokes, Mechner, & Balsam, 1999). That is an important hypothesis, with many implications, but controls are needed before the results can be attributed to the contingencies.…”

Section: Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory

Neuringer

2002

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

219

217

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although responses are sometimes easy to predict, at other times responding seems highly variable, unpredictable, or even random. The inability to predict is generally attributed to ignorance of controlling variables, but this article is a review of research showing that the highest levels of behavioral variability may result from identifiable reinforcers contingent on such variability. That is, variability is an operant. Discriminative stimuli and reinforcers control it, resulting in low or high variability, depending on the contingencies. Schedule-of-reinforcement effects are orderly, and choosing to vary or repeat is lawfully governed by relative reinforcement frequencies. The operant nature of variability has important implications. For example, learning, exploring, creating, and problem solving may partly depend on it. Abnormal levels of variability, including those found in psychopathologies such as autism, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, may be modified through reinforcement. Operant variability may also help to explain some of the unique attributes of voluntary action.

show abstract

Effects of different acquisition procedures on response variability

Cited by 24 publications

References 41 publications

Response stability and variability induced in humans by different feedback contingencies

Response stability and variability induced in humans by different feedback contingencies

Comparing choices and variations in people and rats: Two teaching experiments

Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About