Response‐reinforcer Relations and the Maintenance of Behavior

Abstract

The effects on pigeons' key pecking of unsignaled delays of reinforcement and response-independent reinforcement were compared after either variable-interval or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate baseline schedules. One 30-min session arranging delayed reinforcement and one 30-min session arranging response-independent reinforcement were conducted daily, 6 hr apart. A within-subject yoked-control procedure equated reinforcer frequency and distribution across the two sessions. Response rates usually were reduced more by response-independent than by delayed but responsecontingent delivery of reinforcers. Under both schedules, response rates were lower when obtained delays were greater. These results bear upon methodological and conceptual issues regarding comparisons of contingencies that change the temporal response-reinforcer relations.

Alternative reinforcer response cost impacts cocaine choice in humans

“…Future research should determine whether alternative reinforcers with higher value paid immediately suppress drug choice to a greater degree under this arrangement. Alternative reinforcer magnitude and the immediacy of reinforcement both impact reinforcing efficacy (Gleeson and Lattal, 1987; Nader and Woolverton, 1991). In addition, this study did not include an inactive placebo control condition.…”

Effects of Delayed Reinforcement on Infant Vocalization Rate

“…It may be that our procedures were more similar to those used in the nonhuman and child literature. Specifically, many of the studies with nonhumans and studies with older children involved the repeated presentation of the delayed reinforcement contingency within subjects and across sessions (R. Baer et al, 1984;Ferster & Hammer, 1965;Fowler & Baer, 1981;Gleeson & Lattal, 1987;Sizemore & Lattal, 1977). Although Millar (1972), Millar and Watson (1979), and Ramey and Ourth (1981) used within-subject designs, they did not provide repeated exposure across daily sessions, nor was a criterion of stability achieved prior to changing experimental conditions.…”

“…When the temporal interval between a response and a consequence is lengthened, the subsequent association may be weaker than associations formed with more contiguous events. The association between delayed reinforcement and responding has been investigated in several species, including rats (Grice, 1948;Wolfe, 1934), pigeons (Dews, 1960;Ferster, 1953;Gleeson & Lattal, 1987;Sizemore & Lattal, 1977;Williams, 1976), and monkeys (Ferster & Hammer, 1965), in addition to human infants (Millar, 1972;Millar & Watson, 1979;Ramey & Ourth, 1971) and children (R. Baer, Williams, Osnes, & Stokes, 1984;Fowler & Baer, 1981 …”

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

“…So, whether rats emitted more behavior under one condition or the other depends upon the dimension measured. It may be of interest to test if parallel findings are obtained with longer delays, particularly those which have failed to convincingly increase behavior (see Gleason & Lattal, ; Snycerski, Laraway, Byrne, & Poling, ). For example, precedent suggests that imposing an unsignaled resetting delay of 8 s or longer would reduce lever pressing compared to behavior contacting an FR 1 (Wilkenfield et al, ).…”