Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1998 Jan;69(1):59–75. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-59

Effects of reinforcement rate and delay on the acquisition of lever pressing by rats.

C A Bruner 1, R Avila 1, L Acuña 1, L M Gallardo 1
PMCID: PMC1284647  PMID: 9465413

Abstract

The acquisition of lever pressing by naive rats, in the absence of shaping, was studied as a function of different rates and unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Groups of 3 rats were each exposed to tandem schedules that differed in either the first or the second component. First-component schedules were either continuous reinforcement or random-interval 15, 30, 60 or 120 s; second-component schedules were fixed-time 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, or 24 s. Rate of responding was low under continuous immediate reinforcement and higher under random-interval 15 s. Random interval 30-s and 60-s schedules produced lower rates that were similar to each other. Random-interval 120 s controlled the lowest rate in the immediate-reinforcement condition. Adding a constant 12-s delay to each of the first-component schedule parameters controlled lower response rates that did not vary systematically with reinforcement rate. The continuous and random-interval 60-s schedules of immediate reinforcement controlled higher global and first-component response rates than did the same schedules combined with longer delays, and first-component rates showed some graded effects of delay duration. In addition, the same schedules controlled higher second-component response rates in combination with a 1-s delay than in combination with longer delays. These results were related to those from previous studies on acquisition with delayed reinforcement as well as to those from similar reinforcement procedures used during steady-state responding.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (191.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baum W. M. Performances on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement: Data and theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Mar;59(2):245–264. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Catania A. C., Reynolds G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3 Suppl):327–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Critchfield T. S., Lattal K. A. Acquisition of a spatially defined operant with delayed reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Mar;59(2):373–387. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. DEWS P. B. Free-operant behavior under conditions of delayed reinforcement. I. CRF-type schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1960 Jul;3:221–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1960.3-221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. FARMER J. PROPERTIES OF BEHAVIOR UNDER RANDOM INTERVAL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULES. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Oct;6:607–616. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. FINDLEY J. D. An experimental outline for building and exploring multi-operant behavior repertoires. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Jan;5(Suppl):113–166. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lattal K. A., Gleeson S. Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1990 Jan;16(1):27–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lattal K. A., Metzger B. Response acquisition by Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens) with delayed visual reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jan;61(1):35–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Richards R. W. A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Mar;35(2):145–152. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. SIDLEY N. A., SCHOENFELD W. N. BEHAVIOR STABILITY AND RESPONSE RATE AS FUNCTIONS OF REINFORCEMENT PROBABILITY ON "RANDOM RATIO" SCHEDULES. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 May;7:281–283. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):119–125. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):169–175. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wilkenfield J., Nickel M., Blakely E., Poling A. Acquisition of lever-press responding in rats with delayed reinforcement: A comparison of three procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Nov;58(3):431–443. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Williams B. A. The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):441–449. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES