Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2003 Jul;80(1):43–58. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-43

Economic and biological influences on key pecking and treadle pressing in pigeons.

Leonard Green 1, Daniel D Holt 1
PMCID: PMC1284946  PMID: 13677608

Abstract

Pigeons were studied on a two-component multiple schedule in which the required operant was, in different conditions, biologically relevant (i.e., key pecking) or nonbiologically relevant (i.e., treadle pressing). Responding was reinforced on a variable-interval (VI) 2-min schedule in both components. In separate phases, additional food was delivered on a variable-time (VT) 15-s schedule (response independent) or a VI 15-s schedule (response dependent) in one of the components. The addition of response-independent food had different effects on responding depending on the operant response and on the frequency with which the components alternated. When components alternated frequently (every 10 s), all pigeons keypecked at a much higher rate during the component with the additional food deliveries, whether response dependent or independent. In comparison, treadle pressing was elevated only when the additional food was response dependent; rate of treadling was lower when the additional food was response independent. When components alternated infrequently (every 20 min), pigeons key pecked at high rates at points of transition into the component with the additional food deliveries. Rate of key pecking decreased with time spent in the 20-min component when the additional food was response independent, whereas rate of pecking remained elevated in that component when the additional food was response dependent. Under otherwise identical test conditions, rate of treadle pressing varied only as a function of its relative rate of response-dependent reinforcement. Delivery of response-independent food thus had different, but predictable, effects on responding depending on which operant was being studied, suggesting that animal-learning procedures can be integrated with biological considerations without the need to propose constraints that limit general laws of learning.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (188.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Boakes R. A., Halliday M. S., Poli M. Response additivity: effects of superimposed free reinforcement on a variable-interval baseline. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Mar;23(2):177–191. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boakes R. A. Response decrements produced by extinction and by response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):293–302. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [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. Davison M., Ferguson A. The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gamzu E., Schwartz B. The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus-contingent and response-independent food presentation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):65–72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Green L. Are there two classes of classically-conditioned responses? Pavlov J Biol Sci. 1978 Jul-Sep;13(3):154–162. doi: 10.1007/BF03001388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Green L., Rachlin H. Economic and biological influences on a pigeon's key peck. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jan;23(1):55–62. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Imam A. A., Lattal K. A. Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Sep;50(2):261–271. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lattal K. A., Abreu-Rodrigues J. Response-independent events in the behavior stream. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Nov;68(3):375–398. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Madden Gregory J., Perone Michael. Effects of alternative reinforcement on human behavior: the source does matter. J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 Mar;79(2):193–206. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. REYNOLDS G. S. Behavioral contrast. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jan;4:57–71. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Westbrook R. F. Failure to obtain positive contrast when pigeons press a bar. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Nov;20(3):499–510. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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