Effects of Reinforcement Amount on Attack Induced Under a Fixed‐interval Schedule in Pigeons

Abstract

Key pecking by pigeons was maintained on a chained fixed-interval 4-min (12-min for 1 subject) fixed-ratio 1 schedule of food presentation. Attacks toward a restrained and protected conspecific were recorded. In the first experiment, the amount of food presented per interval was manipulated across phases by varying the number of fixed ratios required in the terminal link of the chain. Measures of attack for all pigeons during the fixed-interval component increased monotonically as a function of food amount. In the second experiment, two different food amounts alternated within each experimental session under a multiple schedule. For both pigeons in this experiment, measures of attack were higher during the component that delivered the larger food amount per interval. The differences in levels of attack induced by the two food amounts in Experiment 2, however, were not as great as in Experiment 1; apparently this was because attack during the first interval of each component was controlled in part (P-5626) or entirely (P-7848) by the reinforcement amount delivered at the end of the previous component. Attack was also a function of the location of the interfood interval within the session. For both pigeons, attack tended to decrease throughout the session. The results of both experiments suggest that attack is an increasing function of reinforcement amount under fixed-interval schedules, but that this function may be influenced by the manner in which reinforcement amount is manipulated, by the duration of the interfood interval, and by the location of the interfood interval within the experimental session. In general, these results are compatible with theories of induced attack and other schedule-induced behavior that emphasize aversive after-effects of reinforcement presentation.

Extended Pausing by Humans on Multiple Fixed-Ratio Schedules With Varied Reinforcer Magnitude and Response Requirements

“…A number of species engage in adjunctive or schedule-induced behavior during the postreinforcement interruption in responding. The form of these behaviors depends on present environmental supports and can include aggression (e.g, Todd, Morris, & Fenza, 1989; see also Pitts & Malagodi, 1996, for an especially pertinent example) or excessive (compulsive) behaviors such as polydipsia, air licking, and wheel running. These behaviors are noteworthy in that they are characterized as nonadaptive; in their exaggerated forms they exceed the biological requirements of the organism (e.g., Falk, 1967).…”

“…This view is consistent with the notion that the stimuli signaling a rich-to-lean transition are aversive. Pitts and Malagodi (1996) demonstrated that pigeons' aggressive behavior under intermittent schedules of reinforcement is an increasing function of the magnitude of reinforcement, and is a function of the past and upcoming reinforcer as well. Thus, larger reinforcers can increase the aversive properties of intermittent reinforcement schedules.…”

Advance Notice for Transition-Related Problem Behavior: Practice Guidelines

“…Presentation of aversive stimuli can elicit emotional responses that may engender aggression and disrupt adaptive operant behaviors in animals (e.g., Pitts and Malagodi 1996) and humans (e.g., Iwata et al 1982). People with IDD (including autism) and young children may engage in stereotypy, tantrums, and aggressive behaviors when exposed to aversive stimulation.…”

Diurnal pituitary-adrenal activity during schedule-induced polydipsia of water and ethanol in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis)

“…The behavior that is generated depends on the reinforcer properties and the environmental opportunities, e.g., polydipsia, aggression or wheel running (Roper 1978; Grant and Johanson 1990; Nader and Woolverton 1992). Further, the quantity of the behavior generated is modified by food deprivation (Lamas and Pellón 1995), reinforcer magnitude (Pitts and Malagodi 1996; Samson and Falk 1974) and by punishing the adjunctive behavior (Flores and Pellón 2000). Thus, adjunctive behavior is regulated by both the properties of the schedule of reinforcement, the nature of the scheduled reinforcer, the environmental opportunities and the consequences of the adjunctive behavior.…”