FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES OF CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT WITH CHIMPANZEES<sup>1</sup>

Kelleher, Roger T.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1958.1-281

Cited by 68 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Kelleher has noted, the schedules according to which tokens are delivered are of critical importance in determining their effectiveness in maintaining responding in extended behavior sequences. The results of Kelleher's (1956Kelleher's ( , 1957aKelleher's ( , 1958) studies of fixed-ratio schedules of token rein-472 forcement with chimpanzees and a previous study by the present investigator with fixed-ratio schedules of token reinforcement with rats (Malagodl, 1967b) suggest that ratio schedules are more effective than interval schedules in sustaining such behavior. This is not surprising when one considers the different possibilities of accidental reinforcement that exist under ratio and interval schedules.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 51%

Variable-interval schedules of token reinforcement

Malagodi¹

1967

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two rats received token reinforcement for lever-pressing on VI schedules. Initially, tokens were immediately exchangeable for food. The rats were subsequently required to obtain groups of tokens before they could be exchanged. As the number of tokens required for exchange was gradually increased, response rates for token-production decreased. The variable-interval patterns of responding were disrupted as soon as two tokens were required for exchange.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 51%

Variable-interval schedules of token reinforcement

Malagodi¹

1967

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Behavior was maintained successfully with these token contingencies even when the exchange ofthe tokens for food was delayed until the end of the experimental session. However, subsequent work by Kelleher (1958) demonstrated that the vigor of behavior was strongly affected by the time between token delivery and when they were exchangeable. In general, when exchange was delayed until the end of the session, response rate was low at the start of the session, often for prolonged periods of time.…”

Section: Practical Uses Of Conditioned Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, when exchange was delayed until the end of the session, response rate was low at the start of the session, often for prolonged periods of time. For example, when tokens were earned on an FR 125 schedule and 50 tokens were required before the tokens could be exchanged for food, the chimpanzees typically paused for more than 2 hr at the start ofeach session (Kelleher, 1958). These pauses were shown to be under the discriminative control of the number of tokens in the animal's possession, in that delivery of a number of tokens at the start of the session independent of the animal's behavior resulted in vigorous behavior from the start of the session.…”

Section: Practical Uses Of Conditioned Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of conditioned reinforcement has received decreased attention in learning textbooks over the past decade, in part because of criticisms of its validity by major behavior theorists and in part because its explanatory function in a variety of different conditioning procedures has become uncertain. Critical data from the major procedures that have been used to investigate the concept (second-order schedules, chain schedules, concurrent chains, observing responses, delay-of-reinforcement procedures) are reviewed, along with the major issues of interpretation. Although the role played by conditioned reinforcement in some procedures remains unresolved, the results taken together leave little doubt that the underlying idea of conditioned value is a critical component of behavior theory that is necessary to explain many different types of data. Other processes (marking, bridging) may also operate to produce effects similar to those of conditioned reinforcement, but these clearly cannot explain the full domain of experimental effects ascribed to conditioned reinforcement and should be regarded as complements to the concept rather than theoretical competitors. Examples of practical and theoretical applications of the concept of conditioned reinforcement are also considered.Key words: conditioned reinforcement, behavior theory, observing behavior, chain schedules, delay of reinforcement, concurrent chains A general assumption in contemporary behavior analysis is that human behavior is best understood in terms of the contingencies of reinforcement operating on that behavior. Yet much, if not most, human behavior has little immediate impact on satisfying the biological motives that underlie the reinforcement contingencies commonly studied in the laboratory. People are not born with a tendency to work for money, to like the taste of alcohol or coffee, or to discover laws of behavior. We are also not born with the motivation to engage in compulsive hand washing or to be fearful ofspeaking in public. Such motives, both positive and negative, are learned,'and a major task of any behavior theory is to specify how such learning occurs, both in order to have a complete theory of behavior

show abstract

“…Looking again to laboratory research, classic experiments by Kelleher (1958) andMalagodi (1967), with chimpanzees and rats, respectively, have shown that animals frequently engage in various forms of token-directed behavior (e.g., handling and manual contact), arising from the frequent token-food pairings. While such handling does not seem necessary for tokens to function as effective reinforcers-as other research with pigeons has shown functional control by visual nonmanipulable tokens-it is certainly possible that manual contact enhances the reinforcing efficacy of tokens.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Ahrendt, Houlihan, and Buchanan

Hackenberg

2013

Behav Analysis Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports some puzzling results from a token economy in an inpatient behavioral treatment facility. A seemingly insignificant change from poker chip tokens to sticker tokens produced substantial increases in problem behavior-as measured by frequency of time-outs for problem behavior. The results are puzzling because it is generally assumed that qualitative aspects of the tokens-such as whether or not they are handled-should not matter.What should matter is simply the correlation between tokens and other reinforcers for which they are exchanged. Indeed, the successful use of check marks, stickers, and stars in scores of token systems over the years shows pretty clearly that stickers and other nonhandled tokens are up to the job.Why, then, did behavior deteriorate in this case? Without additional information on other aspects of the program, it is hard to know for sure. Laboratory research may provide a few clues, however. To begin with, the findings seem relevant to the literature on incentive contrast-behavioral changes due to shifts in reinforcer value. Dozens of studies with a range of species have shown that downward shifts in reinforcer value induce predictable changes in behavior, including aggression and other behavior incidental to the reinforcement contingencies (Flaherty, 1982;Pellegrini et al., 2008). What is notable about these findings is that a reinforcer capable of sustaining behavior in its own right loses its value when contrasted with a higher-valued reinforcer. In the present case, the value of the stickers may have been degraded by contrast with the higher-valued poker chip tokens.This raises another question, namely, why should poker chips work better than sticker tokens as conditioned reinforcers? Looking again to laboratory research, classic experiments by Kelleher (1958) andMalagodi (1967), with chimpanzees and rats, respectively, have shown that animals frequently engage in various forms of token-directed behavior (e.g., handling and manual contact), arising from the frequent token-food pairings. While such handling does not seem necessary for tokens to function as effective reinforcers-as other research with pigeons has shown functional control by visual nonmanipulable tokens-it is certainly possible that manual contact enhances the reinforcing efficacy of tokens. Such handling may also heighten the discriminative functions of the tokens, clearly delineating the token-earning responses (an effect sometimes called marking), as well as bridging the gap between tokens and exchange periods. Based on these findings, it is not unreasonable to think that handling the poker chip tokens, if even briefly upon earning and then again upon exchange, enhances their reinforcing efficacy.To properly evaluate this hypothesis, it would be helpful to know more about the token-production and exchange schedules, both of which have been shown to be critical determinants of behavior in token economies. In a classroom-wide token economy with fourth and fifth grade students, for example, McLaughlin and M...

show abstract

FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES OF CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT WITH CHIMPANZEES¹

Cited by 68 publications

References 7 publications

Variable-interval schedules of token reinforcement

Variable-interval schedules of token reinforcement

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

Response to Ahrendt, Houlihan, and Buchanan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES OF CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT WITH CHIMPANZEES1

Cited by 68 publications

References 7 publications

Variable-interval schedules of token reinforcement

Variable-interval schedules of token reinforcement

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

Response to Ahrendt, Houlihan, and Buchanan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES OF CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT WITH CHIMPANZEES¹