Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2001 Sep;76(2):179–194. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-179

Response-independent milk delivery enhances persistence of pellet-reinforced lever pressing by rats.

J A Grimes 1, R L Shull 1
PMCID: PMC1284833  PMID: 11599638

Abstract

If, during training, one stimulus is correlated with a higher rate of reinforcement than another, responding will be more resistant to extinction in the presence of that higher rate signal, even if many of the reinforcers have been presented independently of responding. For the present study we asked if the response-independent reinforcers must be the same as the response-dependent reinforcers to enhance the response's persistence. Twelve Long-Evans hooded rats obtained 45-mg food pellets by lever pressing (variable-interval 100-s schedules) in the presence of two discriminative stimuli (blinking vs. steady lights) that alternated every minute during daily sessions. Also, in the presence of one of the stimuli (counterbalanced across rats), the rats received additional response-independent deliveries of sweetened condensed milk (a variable-time schedule). Extinction sessions were exactly like training sessions except that neither pellets nor milk were presented. Lever pressing was more resistant to extinction in the presence of the milk-correlated stimulus when (a) the size of the milk deliveries during training (under a variable-time 30 s schedule) was 0.04 ml (vs. 0.01 ml) and (b) 120-s or 240-s blackouts separated components. Response-independent reinforcers do not have to be the same as the response-dependent reinforcers to enhance persistence.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (181.0 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Baron A., Mikorski J., Schlund M. Reinforcement magnitude and pausing on progressive-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Sep;58(2):377–388. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel W. K., Green L., Vuchinich R. E. Behavioral economics (Editorial). J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Nov;64(3):257–262. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Burgess I. S., Wearden J. H. Superimposition of response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jan;45(1):75–82. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Grace R. C., Nevin J. A. Comparing preference and resistance to change in constant- and variable-duration schedule components. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Sep;74(2):165–188. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Grace R., Nevin J. On the relation between preference and resistance to change. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Jan;67(1):43–65. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.67-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hursh S. R. Behavioral economics. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Nov;42(3):435–452. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lattal K. M. Trial and intertrial durations in Pavlovian conditioning: issues of learning and performance. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1999 Oct;25(4):433–450. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.25.4.433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mace F. C. Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 May;61(3):529–550. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mace F. C., Lalli J. S., Shea M. C., Lalli E. P., West B. J., Roberts M., Nevin J. A. The momentum of human behavior in a natural setting. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Nov;54(3):163–172. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mauro B. C., Mace F. C. Differences in the effect of Pavlovian contingencies upon behavioral momentum using auditory versus visual stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Mar;65(2):389–399. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nevin J. A. An integrative model for the study of behavioral momentum. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):301–316. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nevin J. A., Grace R. C. Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Feb;23(1):73–130. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00002405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nevin J. A., Tota M. E., Torquato R. D., Shull R. L. Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies? J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 May;53(3):359–379. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nevin J. The momentum of compliance. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):535–547. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rachlin H., Baum W. M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):231–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-231. [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