GROUP BEHAVIOR OF RATS UNDER SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Abstract

Groups of three rats were placed in a chamber containing one response lever and one water dispenser. A variety of schedule conditions were explored including fixed ratio, extinction, satiation, fixed interval, fixed time, differential reinforcement of low rates, and discrimination learning. Each group was treated as a single unit, with the collective lever responses emitted by the three rats being the main dependent variable. Group responding was found to be controlled by the reinforcement schedules in an orderly and consistent manner. However, the groups often paused less and responded faster than individual rats working under identical conditions.Whereas the experimental analysis of behavior has emphasized isolated organisms, in nonlaboratory environments animals often interact. The present study attempted to extend operant conditioning methods and analysis to the behavior of groups. Most experiments on group performance have been concerned with the behavior of one individual as a function of variables related to the presence of others (e.g., Husband, 1931;Wheeler and Davis, 1967). When interaction was involved, it was the nature of the within-group interactions that was typically of primary interest (e.g., Baron and Littman, 1961;Mowrer, 1960;Oldfield-Box, 1967 organisms has been studied as a function of basic schedules of reinforcement.In the present study, three rats were placed together in an operant chamber containing one lever and one water dispenser. The collective operant behavior of the group, defined by lever responses, was the main dependent variable. The groups were also monitored visually. To compare group performances with the more extensively studied individual operant performances, individual rats were presented with schedules identical to those given the groups.

THE MATCHING LAW IN AND WITHIN GROUPS OF RATS1

“…The most important development has been the use of token economies (e.g., Ayllon and Azrin, 1968), sometimes explicitly linked to an economic analysis (Winkler, 1971), and of multi-operant environments (e.g., Findley, 1966). But much more could be done, along the lines of applying economic concepts to standard operant paradigms (as in Green and Rachlin, 1975, or Kagel, Battalio, Rachlin, Green, Basmann, and Klemm, 1975), or showing that phenomena known in individuals also apply to groups (as in Grott and Neuringer, 1974). The present experiments have shown that both these last strategies can be pursued simultaneously.…”

“…On the one hand, some schedule effects survive relaxation of standard experimental conditions. Grott and 183 1977, 25, 183-194 NUMBER I (JANUARY) Neuringer (1974) showed that a group of rats behaves roughly like a single rat on some standard schedules of reinforcement; Morgan, Fitch, Holman, and Lea (1976) used multipleinterval schedules to teach higher-order concepts to free-living pigeons with unrestricted access to the schedules; and Baum (1972Baum ( , 1974a obtained matching from a single pigeon with unrestricted access to conc VI VI, and from free-living pigeons with virtually unrestricted access (only one pigeon could occupy the apparatus at a time). On the other hand, if different subjects can command two manipulanda, the situation might approximate a simple, rather than a concurrent schedule: as soon as reinforcement is available on each schedule, it might be taken by the subject commanding the corresponding manipulandum.…”

Operant variability: Evidence, functions, and theory

“…Analogously, merely permitting varied social behavior, as in a free or laissezfaire society, may not suffice to produce the desired diversity. If the results, shown for individual organisms, can provide useful information for groups (see, e.g., Grott & Neuringer, 1974), then when variations are desired, societies might reward individuals for varying, not simply permit it.…”

Toward applied behavior analysis of life aloft

“…Grott and Neuringer (1974) used this procedure to determine the effects of discrimination training procedures and schedules of reinforcement, and the same approach was employed in the analysis of a group living and worksharing system for college students (Feallock & Miller, 1976). Of considerable practical importance is the experimental literature on the application of group contingencies in business and industry.…”