Licking one saccharin solution for access to another in rats: Contingent and noncontingent effects in instrumental performance

Abstract

Separation of the contingent and noncontingent effects of a schedule on amount of instrumental responding is desirable but difficult in schedules that involve instrumental and contingent responses that are either highly probable or very similar. Three studies in which rats were required to lick a solution of .1% saccharin for access to a preferred solution of .4% saccharin showed that neither single nor paired operant baselines of the instrumental response allowed accurate separation of the contingent and noncontingent effects of a fixed-ratio schedule. Two within-subject yoking procedures provided the best baselines of noncontingent effects: the massed baseline measured amount of .1% licking when each subject received free access to the total amount of .4% licking it obtained at asymptote under the schedule; the matched baseline measured .1% licking when each subject received the same access to the .4% solution, but presented in the intermittent pattern obtained during the schedule. Of the three algebraic models used to predict noncontingent effects, the substitution model was most promising, but still not adequate. The procedure of a between-subjects yoked control was also not effective.There has been much recent interest in using measures of responding in baseline sessions to predict performance under an instrumental contingency (

Response Deprivation and Reinforcement in Applied Settings: A Preliminary Analysis

“…In summary, the results of this experiment suggest the sufficiency of the state of response deprivation to produce reinforcement effects in an academic context, thereby systematically replicating basic laboratory research findings (Allison et al, 1979; , 1975Bernstein, 1974;Eisenberger et al, 1967;Heth & Warren, 1978;Timberlake, 1979;Timberlake & Wozny, 1979). However, because of the tentative nature of the effects of the MC conditions, it cannot be determined how much of the increases in the instrumental responding were due to the contingent relationship between the responses.…”

“…The fact that Dave's increased coloring behavior was maintained in the MC condition may suggest that deprivation alone (without contingency) may be sufficient to achieve a reinforcement effect. It may be that true instrumental conditioning did not underlie the reinforcement effect; rather, the removal of the contingent response alone may have produced this result in the RD conditions (Bernstein & Ebbeson, 1978;Timberlake, 1979). However, certain methodological limitations in the use of the MC condition in the present study are relevant to this issue.…”

“…A response substitution mechanism such as this has been suggested by Rachlin and Burkhard (1978) to be an important variable underlying many reinforcement effects and deserves closer investigation. However, as noted by Timberlake (1979), although the noncontingent effects of a schedule may contribute to increases of instrumental responding, there exists ample evidence that important contributions are also made by its contingent aspects.…”

“…both the contingent and noncontingent effects of instrumental schedules. Further investigation and discussion of this issue has been presented by Timberlake (1979).…”

Response Restriction and Substitution With Autistic Children

“…Some studies have shown that mere restriction of one response in a pair is sufficient to produce an increase in the other response, independent of any contingent relation (e.g., Allison & Timberlake, 1974;Bernstein, 1974;Dunham, 1972; Timberlake, 1979). Few studies, however, have restricted access to one response and examined the effects on two or more other responses (Dunham, 1977;Knapp, 1976; Konarski, Crowell, Johnson, & Whitman, 1982;Konarski, Johnson, Crowell, & Whitman, 1981; but see, e.g., Lyons & Cheney, 1984;Rojahn, Mulick, McCoy, & Schroeder, 1978).…”