Why Pigeons Say What They Do: Reinforcer Magnitude and Response Requirement Effects on Say Responding in Say—do Correspondence

Abstract

The effects of reinforcer magnitude and response requirement on pigeons' say choices in an experimental homologue of human say-do correspondence were assessed in two experiments. The procedure was similar to a conditional discrimination procedure except the pigeons chose both a sample stimulus (the say component) and a comparison stimulus that corresponded to it (the do component). Correspondence was trained on red, green, and white key colors before the duration of food presentations following correspondence on each key color (Experiment 1) and the number of key pecks required as the say response on each key color (Experiment 2) were manipulated in an attempt to influence the initial say response. The frequency of say responses on each key color coincided with programmed changes in the duration of food presentations and the key-peck requirements assigned to each key color. Correspondence accuracy remained stable in all conditions, even those in which the say responding occurred primarily on two of the three key colors. Implications for human behavior are discussed.

Translational Research in Behavior Analysis: Historical Traditions and Imperative for the Future

“…A second use of the basic laboratory has been to develop laboratory models of specific human problems. Such models often diverge from traditional laboratory procedures by using participants, behaviors, or controlling variables (e.g., discriminative stimuli) of everyday relevance (e.g., Borrero et al, 2010; da Silva & Lattal, 2010; Derenne, 2010; Habib & Dixon, 2010; Lionello‐Denolf, Dube, & McIlvane, 2010; Milo, Mace, & Nevin, 2010), though in some cases the procedures are indistinguishable from those of “pure basic” studies, in which case only the research question belies everyday concerns (e.g., da Silva & Lattal, 2010; Ecott & Critchfield, 2004). Perhaps the most familiar example of a laboratory model is the drug self‐administration procedure that uses drug doses as reinforcers and has been employed extensively to evaluate the abuse potential of various pharmacological agents (e.g., Ator & Griffiths, 1987).…”

“…Laboratory models have been developed to examine such diverse problems as false memory (Guinther & Dougher, 2010), gambling (Habib & Dixon, 2010), say—do correspondence (da Silva & Lattal, 2010; Lattal & Doepke, 2001), alternative reinforcement as a factor in noncontingent reinforcement interventions and resistance to extinction (Ecott & Critchfield, 2004; Mace et al, 2010), cooperation (Hake, Olivera, & Bell, 1975; Schmitt & Marwell, 1968; Yi & Rachlin, 2004) and the role of conditional stimulus relations in social stereotyping, self‐disclosure, and analogical reasoning (Keenen, McGlinchey, Fairhurst, & Dillenberger, 2000; Roche, Barnes‐Holmes, Barnes‐Holmes, & Hayes, 2001; Stewart, Barnes‐Holmes, Roche, & Smeets, 2002). Many such models, however, have been embraced by only a handful of laboratories and have not yielded a large body of published research.…”

The Fuzzy Concept of Applied Behavior Analysis Research

“…But there are many other examples. For instance, some of the dynamics of saydo correspondence have been examined in pigeons (da Silva & Lattal, 2010;Lattal & Doepke, 2001), and clinically important predictions of behavioral momentum theory have been tested first in rats (Mace et al, 2010, Experiment 2).…”

Atraso de tempo na aquisição de correspondência verbal em adultos: um estudo exploratório

“…Since the first mention of the phenomenon of correspondence by Risley and Hart (1968), several studies have sought to determine the regularity of data that have been generated, but the diversity of explanations that have been offered for the phenomenon and different notions of verbal correspondence that have derived from these explanations are far from being resolved (Perez, 2017). This absence of resolution may be attributable to both (a) the multiplicity of theoretical conceptions (e.g., correspondence as following instructions, behavior governed by rules, self-instruction, and functional dominance) and (b) the variety of hypotheses and empirical procedures that have derived from these perspectives (e.g., da Silva & Lattal, 2010;de Freitas Ribeiro, 1989;Huffman et al, 2016;Lima & Abreu-Rodrigues, 2010).…”