Reinforced behavioral variability: Working towards an understanding of its behavioral mechanisms

Abstract

There is disagreement about how to characterize the environment-behavior relations involved in the reinforcement of behavioral variability. The present research examined some of these issues using food-maintained, 4-peck sequences in pigeons. Experiment 1 evaluated the claim that behavioral variability is not reinforced directly but, rather, is the byproduct of changing over within sequences. Considerably higher levels of behavioral variation occurred under a relative-frequency threshold contingency than under a contingency that required a changeover but not variability per se. These results are consistent with the argument that behavioral variability is reinforced directly. Experiment 2 assessed the effects on variation levels of manipulating inter-trial and inter-response intervals. Variability increased with longer inter-response intervals but not with longer inter-trial intervals. These results are consistent with multiple explanations, including the notion that remembering past behavior interferes with the emission of reinforced variation. Consequently, Experiment 3 examined more directly the relation between remembering and reinforced variation. Variation levels were not affected by a concurrent contingency that encouraged pigeons to remember their past behavior. The implications of this research are presented in the context of working towards an understanding of the environment-behavior relations involved in the reinforcement of behavioral variability.

Persistence and relapse of reinforced behavioral variability

“…In other words, reinforcers delivered following left key pecking may also strengthen right key pecking, and it may be difficult for a pigeon to exactly replicate a previous sequence, especially when longer sequences are used. However, when Doughty and Galizio () arranged for shorter sequences than used in the prior experiments, reinforcing switches was insufficient to produce variable responding. Additionally, the results of the present study provide evidence that at least in some cases, increased switching does not lead to an increase in behavioral variability (see Experiment 3).…”

“…Examining relative frequency distributions may provide a more complete measure of behavioral variability than U-value alone. Relative frequency distribution analyses involve examining the incidence of every possible response alternative (e.g., Doughty & Galizio, 2015;Doughty et al, 2013;Machado, 1997;Neuringer et al, 2001;Odum et al, 2006). Relative frequency distributions reveal whether any response options have been systematically omitted, which would affect U-value calculation.…”

“…Page and Neuringer (1985) demonstrated that high levels of behavioral variability could be sustained using lag schedules. Reinforced behavioral variability has been observed in pigeons (e.g., Abreu-Rodrigues, Lattal, dos Santos, & Matos, 2005;Doughty & Galizio, 2015;Doughty, Giorno, & Miller, 2013;Machado, 1997;Odum, Ward, Barnes, & Burke, 2006;Ward, Bailey, & Odum, 2006;Ward, Kynaston, Bailey, & Odum, 2008), rats (e.g., Cohen, Neuringer, & Rhodes, 1990;Neuringer, 1991), and humans (e.g., Abreu-Rodrigues, Souza, & Moreira, 2007;Neuringer, 1986;Paeye & Madelain, 2011;Ross & Neuringer, 2002).…”

A Critical Review of the Support for Variability as an Operant Dimension

“…Several later experiments have shown that variability, normally measured as the dispersion of different sequences, are higher when a variability contingency is in effect, than when it is not (e.g., Denney & Neuringer, 1998;Kong, McEwan, Bizo, & Foster, 2019;Miller & Neuringer, 2000). This finding is highly reliable, and the interpretation of "direct reinforcement of variability" and "variability as an operant dimension" has been widely accepted (e.g., Catania, 2013;Doughty & Galizio, 2015;Dracobly, Dozier, Briggs, & Juanico, 2017;Lee, Sturmey, & Fields, 2007;Locey & Rachlin, 2013;Odum, Ward, Barnes, & Burke, 2006;Rodriguez & Thompson, 2015;Stahlman & Blaisdell, 2011;Stokes, 1995;Stokes, Mechner & Balsam, 1999;Ward, Kynaston, Bailey, & Odum, 2008). Nevertheless, a few researchers (Barba, 2015;Epstein, 2014;Holth, 2012;Machado, 1989Machado, , 1992Machado, , 1993Machado, , 1997Machado & Tonneau, 2012;Marr, 2012) have raised the question of whether direct reinforcement of variability is the most satisfactory view or whether the variability in these experiments is more effectively or pragmatically considered as a derivative of other procedural characteristics.…”

Choice for reinforced behavioral variability in children with autism spectrum disorder

“…Another important finding in the present study is that behavioral variability and repetition can be brought under discriminative stimulus control. Such stimulus control has already been reliably demonstrated in animal subjects (e.g., Denney & Neuringer, ; Doughty & Galizio, ; Galizio et al, ), but finding the same effect in applied settings has presented more of a challenge. Previous research has demonstrated discriminated variable responding in children with ASD (e.g., Brodhead et al, ), but it is unclear to what extent stimulus conditions must differ to promote discrimination in individuals with ASD.…”