Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2002 Jul;78(1):17–30. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.78-17

Effects of reinforcer magnitude on responding under differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules of rats and pigeons.

Adam H Doughty 1, Jerry B Richards 1
PMCID: PMC1284886  PMID: 12144310

Abstract

Experiment I investigated the effects of reinforcer magnitude on differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule performance in three phases. In Phase 1, two groups of rats (n = 6 and 5) responded under a DRI. 72-s schedule with reinforcer magnitudes of either 30 or 300 microl of water. After acquisition, the water amounts were reversed for each rat. In Phase 2, the effects of the same reinforcer magnitudes on DRL 18-s schedule performance were examined across conditions. In Phase 3, each rat responded unider a DR1. 18-s schedule in which the water amotnts alternated between 30 and 300 microl daily. Throughout each phase of Experiment 1, the larger reinforcer magnitude resulted in higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates. The peak of the interresponse-time distributions was at a lower value tinder the larger reinforcer magnitude. In Experiment 2, 3 pigeons responded under a DRL 20-s schedule in which reinforcer magnitude (1-s or 6-s access to grain) varied iron session to session. Higher response rates and lower reinforcement rates occurred tinder the longer hopper duration. These results demonstrate that larger reinforcer magnitudes engender less efficient DRL schedule performance in both rats and pigeons, and when reinforcer magnitude was held constant between sessions or was varied daily. The present results are consistent with previous research demonstrating a decrease in efficiency as a function of increased reinforcer magnituide tinder procedures that require a period of time without a specified response. These findings also support the claim that DRI. schedule performance is not governed solely by a timing process.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (621.1 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Balsam P. D., Brownstein A. J., Shull R. L. Effect of varying the duration of grain presentation on automaintenance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jan;29(1):27–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonem M., Crossman E. K. Elucidating the effects of reinforcement magnitude. Psychol Bull. 1988 Nov;104(3):348–362. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.104.3.348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown P. L., Jenkins H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):1–8. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Church R. M., Gibbon J. Temporal generalization. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1982 Apr;8(2):165–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dews P. B., Morse W. H. Some observations on an operant in human subjects and its modification by dextro amphetamine. J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Oct;1(4):359–364. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Killeen P. R. Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):407–417. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Leung J. P., Winton A. S. Preference for unsegmented interreinforcement intervals in concurrent chains. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Jul;44(1):89–101. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Monterosso J., Ainslie G. Beyond discounting: possible experimental models of impulse control. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1999 Oct;146(4):339–347. doi: 10.1007/pl00005480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Reed P., Wright J. E. Effects of magnitude of food reinforcement on free-operant response rates. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jan;49(1):75–85. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Reynolds G. S. Discrimination and emission of temporal intervals by pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jan;9(1):65–68. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Richards J. B., Mitchell S. H., de Wit H., Seiden L. S. Determination of discount functions in rats with an adjusting-amount procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 May;67(3):353–366. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.67-353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Richards J. B., Sabol K. E., Seiden L. S. DRL interresponse-time distributions: quantification by peak deviation analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Sep;60(2):361–385. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Richards J. B., Seiden L. S. A quantitative interresponse-time analysis of DRL performance differentiates similar effects of the antidepressant desipramine and the novel anxiolytic gepirone. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Sep;56(2):173–192. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. STADDON J. E. SOME PROPERTIES OF SPACED RESPONDING IN PIGEONS. J Exp Anal Behav. 1965 Jan;8:19–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Williams D. R., Williams H. Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jul;12(4):511–520. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-511. [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