Stimulus Bias in the Absence of Food Reinforcement

Pigeons were exposed to multiple schedules in which an irregular repeating sequence of five stimulus components was correlated with the same reinforcement schedule throughout. Stable, idiosyncratic, response-rate differences developed across components. Components were rank-ordered by response rate; an approximately linear relation was found between rank order and the deviation of mean response rate from the overall mean rate. Nonzero slopes of this line were found for multiple fixed-interval and variable-time schedules and for multiple variable-interval schedules both when number of reinforcements was the same in all components and when it varied. The steepest function slopes were found in the variable schedules with relatively long interfood intervals and relatively short component durations. When just one stimulus was correlated with all components of a multiple variable-interval schedule, the slope of the line was close to zero. The results suggest that food-rate differences may be induced initially by different reactions to the stimuli and subsequently maintained by food.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In contrast to Morse and Skinner's view, Lander (1968) found differential responding in two stimuli in a situation that precludes "sampling error." Lander trained his pigeons on a VI 3-min schedule correlated with a white key.…”

contrasting

confidence: 79%

Sensory Superstition on Multiple Interval Schedules

Starr¹,

Staddon²

1982

“…Thus, the differential resistance to extinction in red and green components did not depend on the different arrangements of VI and VT food schedules in the red component in these three conditions, all of which arranged the same total food rates in the red and green components. Accordingly, differential resistance to extinction in these conditions may be ascribed to a color bias (see Lander, 1968, for an instance of red-green color bias in pigeons during extinction after training with white keylights only). When key-color biases in extinction are discounted, resistance to extinction was a positive function of the overall food rate in a schedule component during training and was unaffected by the proportion of VT food presentations when overall food rates were equal.…”

Section: Extinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternative Reinforcement Increases Resistance to Change: Pavlovian or Operant Contingencies?

Nevin

Tota

Torquato

et al. 1990

288

394

Two multiple-schedule experiments with pigeons examined the effect of adding food reinforcement from an alternative source on the resistance of the reinforced response (target response) to the decremental effects of satiation and extinction. In Experiment 1, key pecks were reinforced by food in two components according to variable-interval schedules and, in some conditions, food was delivered according to variable-time schedules in one of the components. The rate of key pecking in a component was negatively related to the proportion of reinforcers from the alternative (variable-time) source. Resistance to satiation and extinction, in contrast, was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement in the component. Experiment 2 was conceptually similar except that the alternative reinforcers were contingent on a specific concurrent response. Again, the rate of the target response varied as a function of its relative reinforcement, but its resistance to satiation and extinction varied directly with the overall rate of reinforcement in the component stimulus regardless of its relative reinforcement. Together the results of the two experiments suggest that the relative reinforcement of a response (the operant contingency) determines its rate, whereas the stimulus-reinforcement contingency (a Pavlovian contingency) determines its resistance to change.Key words: alternative reinforcement, response rate, resistance to change, concurrent schedules, multiple schedules, satiation, extinction, key peck, pigeon Experimental analysis has distinguished two aspects of operant behavior: the rate of a response and the resistance of that rate to reduction by procedures such as satiation and extinction. These two aspects of behavior are of interest because they vary in orderly ways as functions of rate of reinforcement (Catania & Reynolds, 1968;Nevin, 1974Nevin, , 1979Skinner, 1938Skinner, , 1950 and because of their relation to the theoretical concept of response strength. Although response rate has been taken as equivalent to response strength (Skinner, 1938(Skinner, , 1950 to be (Nevin, 1974(Nevin, , 1979Smith, 1974). Consequently, it is of some importance to examine the variables that influence resistance to change (Fath, Fields, Malott, & Grossett, 1983;Nevin, 1974Nevin, , 1979Nevin, , 1984Nevin, Mandell, & Yarensky, 1981;Nevin, Smith, & Roberts, 1987).The rate of a target response maintained by a given rate of reinforcement decreases when reinforcers are added concurrently from an alternative source. This decrease occurs both when reinforcers are added noncontingently (Rachlin & Baum, 1972) and when they are contingent on a different, concurrent response (Catania, 1963). Adding reinforcers from an alternative source may be viewed as degrading the operant contingency, in that the correlation between the occurrence of the target response and the reinforcer is thereby weakened. Thus, alternative reinforcement might reduce response rate by degrading the operant contingency.If a target response's rate and resistance to chan...

“…This phenomenon, investigated by Morse and Skinner (1957), is called "sensory superstition." Although sensory superstition does not produce as large a difference as when a discriminative stimulus is working effectively, it does occur in animals under various conditions (Blue, Sherman, & Pierrel, 1971; Kello, Innis, & Staddon, 1975;Kieffer, 1965;Lander, 1968;Starr & Staddon, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Superstitious Behavior in Humans

Ono

1987

101

Twenty undergraduate students were exposed to single response-independent schedules of reinforcer presentation, fixed-time or variable-time, each with values of 30 and 60 s. The reinforcer was a point on a counter accompanied by a red lamp and a brief buzzer. Three color signals were presented, without consistent relation to reinforcer or to the subjects' behavior. Three large levers were available, but the subjects were not asked to perform any particular behavior. Three of the 20 subjects developed persistent superstitious behavior. One engaged in a pattern of lever-pulling responses that consisted of long pulls after a few short pulls; the second touched many things in the experimental booth; the third showed biased responding called sensory superstition. However, most subjects did not show consistent superstitious behavior. Reinforcers can operate effectively on human behavior even in the absence of a response-reinforcer contingency and can, in some cases, shape stable superstitious patterns. However, superstitious behavior is not a consistent outcome of exposure of human subjects to response-independent reinforcer deliveries.