INTERACTIONS IN MULTIPLE SCHEDULES: NEGATIVE INDUCTION WITH SQUIRREL MONKEYS¹

Abstract

In Experiment I, lever pressing by squirrel monkeys was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval, multiple variable-interval variable-interval, and multiple variable-interval extinction schedules of food presentation. Negative induction (decreased responding in the unchanged component) occurred when one component of the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule was changed to extinction. Negative induction was transient over sessions; responding in the unchanged component usually recovered to a rate similar to that under the multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedule. Negative induction was not accompanied by consistent changes in the patterns of local responding within the unchanged component, and did not depend on whether component schedules were associated with localized (lever lights) or diffuse visual stimuli (houselights), or on whether the unchanged component was a 60- or 180-sec variable-interval schedule. In Experiment II, responding was maintained under a sequence of variable-interval and multiple variable-interval timeout schedules of food presentation. Negative induction occurred when responding declined gradually in the timeout component but not when responding declined abruptly. The nature of interactions in multiple schedules may depend on the species; negative induction was observed with squirrel monkeys under conditions similar to those that produce positive contrast with pigeons.

Interações Comportamentais Em Esquema Múltiplo Utilizando O Jato De Ar Quente (Jaq) Como Estímulo Punidor

“…Estudos experimentais têm demonstrado a produção de interações comportamentais em contingências apetitivas, com diversos tipos de sujeitos (e.g., pombos, ratos, macacos), utilizando esquemas múltiplos (e.g., Bloomfield, 1967;Bradshaw, 1975;Caplan & Graefe, 1980;Catania, 1961;Catania & Gill, 1964;Hemmes & Eckerman, 1972;Gutman, 1977;Gutman, Sutterer, & Brush, 1975;MacDonall & Marcucella, 1978;Pear & Wilkie, 1971;Reynolds, 1961aReynolds, , 1961bReynolds, , 1961cReynolds & Limpo, 1968;Spealman, 1978;Swindell, McSweeney, & Murphy 2003;Thomas & Cameron, 1974;Topping & Larmi Jr, 1972). Interações comportamentais também foram demonstradas utilizando contingências aversivas -punição e reforçamento negativo (e.g., Azrin, 1956;Brethower & Reynolds, 1962;Coates, 1972;Crosbie, Williams, Lattal, Anderson, & Brown, 1997;Dinsmoor, 1952;Herrnstein & Brady, 1958;Honig & Slivka, 1964;Lattal, 1970;Lattal & Griffin, 1972;Rachlin, 1966;Tullis & Walters, 1968).…”

Effects of Fixed and Mixed Delays on Responding under Variable-Interval Schedules

“…All previous studies also used concurrent schedules to compare the effects of fixed and variable delays, excepting Richards and Marcattilio (1978). The extent to which imposing programmed fixed or variable delays on different schedules of reinforcement, including CRF (Mazur ,1984) and VI schedules (Cicerone, 1976), in concurrent schedules or in a single, simple schedule, rather than a multiple schedule, thus avoiding the potential confounding effects of schedule interactions, including but not limited to behavioral contrast and induction (Hemmes & Eckerman, 1972;Lattal & Smith, 2011;Reynolds, 1961Reynolds, , 1963Richards, 1972;Richards & Marcattilio, 1978;Spealman, 1978;Spealman & Gollub, 1978), may produce different results also is unclear.…”