Matching theory and induction explain operant performance

Aparício

2020

Self Cite

The multiscale molar view sees behavior as a flow, like a river, extended in time. Matching theory expresses the way activities compete for time. Relative time taken by any activity depends on relative induction. The present experiment tested matching theory applied to concurrent contingent and noncontingent food. As adjunctive activities that compete with operant activity, we recorded hopper head entries and presses on a lever near the food hopper that had no programmed consequences. Eight naïve rats were first exposed to a variable-time 60 s schedule, which across conditions was gradually transformed into a variable-interval 60 s schedule by increasing the proportion of food that was delivered contingent on pressing a lever far from the hopper. Another group of 4 rats that had been trained to press a lever near a food hopper were introduced in the second condition, in which one food delivery was contingent on far-lever pressing. We found induction following a power function to describe pressing on the far lever (operant activity). Matching theory combined with power-function induction also accounted for adjunctive activity. Results with single contingent food deliveries provided little support for the molecular view that behavior consists of discrete responses "strengthened" by immediately following reinforcers.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response–reinforcer contiguity versus response‐rate–reinforcer‐rate covariance in rats' lever pressing: Support for a multiscale view

Aparício

2020

Self Cite

“…The word “contiguous” means just closeness in time, and the assumption about contiguous reinforcers caused Skinner (1948) to claim incorrectly that noncontingent presentation of food must strengthen some behavior—whatever it was contiguous with. Subsequent research has shown that noncontingent food induces food‐related activities (e.g., Baum & Aparicio, 2020; Baum & Grace, 2020; Segal, 1972; Staddon & Simmelhag, 1971). Moreover, subsequent research showed that response–reinforcer contiguity is neither necessary nor sufficient for favored activities to be selected (e.g., Baum, 1973; Kuroda & Lattal, 2018; Rescorla, 1967, 1968, 1988).…”

Section: Molar and Molecular Paradigmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior, process, and scale: Comments on Shimp (2020), “Molecular (moment‐to‐moment) and molar (aggregate) analyses of behavior”

2021

If we study the behavior of organisms, we must understand the ontological status of both “organism” and “behavior.” A living organism maintains itself alive by constantly interacting with the environment, taking in energy and discarding waste. Ontologically, an organism is a process. Its interactions with the environment, which constitute its behavior, are processes also, because the parts of any process are themselves processes. Processes serve functions, and the function of a process must be part of its identity. A process, by definition, extends in time. Time is the fundamental and universal measure of behavior. All processes have the property of scale. Activities of an organism have parts that are themselves activities on a smaller time scale. Scale varies continuously, and behavior may be studied on as large or as small a time scale as seems necessary. When researchers refer to the “structure” of behavior, they refer to smaller‐scale activities. Attaching a switch to a lever or key is convenient, but one should never confuse operation of a switch with a unit of behavior. Shimp's (2020) “molecular” measures are small‐scale measures. The molecular view based on discrete events has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced by a multiscale molar paradigm.

“…Performance in experiments with mixed contingent and noncontingent food sheds light also on the Law of Induction and the Law of Covariance (Baum, 2018a(Baum, , 2018bBaum & Aparicio, 2020). The general concept of induction introduced by Segal (1972) becomes specific in quantitative accounts as power functions relating responding to rate of food delivery (Baum, 2015;Baum & Davison, 2014;Baum & Grace, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Noncontingent food presented concurrently with contingent food typically reduces operant activity (Dickinson & Charnock, 1985;Lattal, 1974;Rescorla, 1992;Schachtman & Reed, 1990), because according to the Law of Allocation, induced nonoperant activity competes with the operant activity. Noncontingent food may also induce formerly operant activity no longer in covariance with it, at least for a time (e.g., Baum & Grace, 2020;Herrnstein, 1966;Reid, 1958;Rescorla & Skucy, 1969). In a molar view of operant behavior, covariance occurs between responsecontingent food rate and response rate and may be represented by feedback functions within a behavior-environment feedback system (Baum, 1981(Baum, , 1989(Baum, , 2020.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Matching, induction, and covariance with mixed response‐contingent food and noncontingent food

2021

Self Cite

The multiscale molar view of behavior is based on three basic laws of behavior: the Law of Allocation, the Law of Induction, and the Law of Covariance. Experiments that mix response-contingent food with noncontingent food shed light on these three laws. Food, like other phylogenetically important events, induces various activities that compete in allocation. Quantitative accounts represent induction with power functions. These power functions define activities' competitive weights, and relative time allocation among activities matches relative competitive weight. Behavior-food covariance determines which activities are induced. Phylogenetic (behavior-fitness) covariance determines which adjunctive activities are induced. Ontogenetic covariance may be represented in feedback functions. Feedback functions for variable-interval schedules may be observed even when overlaid by noncontingent food deliveries. Equations derived from the three laws describe responding in experiments with mixed responsecontingent and noncontingent food. Equations derived here accounted for responding in three data sets: (a) from Rachlin and Baum (1972); (b) a new data set in which overall food rate was fixed while the proportion of response-contingent and noncontingent food varied; and (c) a new data set in which food occurred according to various variable-interval schedules. The same pigeons served throughout. All results were accommodated by the derived equations.