Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1990 Jan;53(1):141–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-141

The effects of reinforcement frequency and response requirements on the maintenance of behavior.

D P Rider 1, B J D'Angelo 1
PMCID: PMC1323030  PMID: 2299284

Abstract

Six rats responded under fixed-interval and tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules of food reinforcement. Basic fixed-interval schedules alternated over experimental conditions with tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules with the same fixed-interval value. Fixed-interval length was varied within subjects over pairs of experimental conditions; the ratio requirement of the tandem schedules was varied across subjects. For both subjects with a ratio requirement of 10, overall response rates and running response rates typically were higher under the tandem schedules than under the corresponding basic fixed-interval schedules. For all subjects with ratio requirements of 30 or 60, overall response rates and running response rates were higher under the tandem schedules than under the corresponding basic fixed-interval schedules only with relatively short fixed intervals. At longer fixed intervals, higher overall response rates and running rates were maintained by the basic fixed-interval schedules than by the tandem schedules. These findings support Zeiler and Buchman's (1979) reinforcement-theory account of response strength as an increasing monotonic function of both the response requirement and reinforcement frequency. Small response requirements added in tandem to fixed-interval schedules have little effect on reinforcement frequency and so their net effect is to enhance responding. Larger response requirements reduce reinforcement frequency more substantially; therefore their net effect depends on the length of the fixed interval, which limits overall reinforcement frequency. At the longest fixed intervals studied in the present experiment, reinforcement frequency under the tandem schedules was sufficiently low that responding weakened or ceased altogether.

Full text

PDF
141

Selected References

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

  1. Baum W. M. Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Nov;36(3):387–403. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Catania A. C., Matthews T. J., Silverman P. J., Yohalem R. Yoked variable-ratio and variable-interval responding in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Sep;28(2):155–161. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dukich T. D., Lee A. E. A comparison of measures of responding under fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Sep;20(2):281–290. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. HERRNSTEIN R. J., MORSE W. H. A conjunctive schedule of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Jan;1:15–24. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Harzem P., Lowe C. F., Spencer P. T. Temporal control of behavior: schedule interactions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Nov;30(3):255–270. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-255. [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. KINTSCH W. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF INTERRESPONSE TIMES DURING VI AND VR REINFORCEMENT. J Exp Anal Behav. 1965 Sep;8:347–352. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Killeen P. Reinforcement frequency and contingency as factors in fixed-ratio behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 May;12(3):391–395. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lowe C. F., Harzem P. Species differences in temporal control of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Nov;28(3):189–201. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lowe C. F., Harzem P., Spencer P. T. Temporal control of behavior and the power law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 May;31(3):333–343. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Matthews B. A., Shimoff E., Catania A. C., Sagvolden T. Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 May;27(3):453–467. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rider D. P. Alternative fixed-ratio fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Mar;33(2):243–252. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rider D. P. Interlocking schedules: the relationship between response and time requirements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jul;28(1):41–46. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Rider D. P., Kametani N. N. Intermittent reinforcement of a continuous response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Jan;47(1):81–95. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Rider D. P., Kametani N. N. Interreinforcement time, work time, and the postreinforcement pause. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Sep;42(2):305–319. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Schneider B. A. A two-state analysis of fixed-interval responding in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):677–687. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Shimoff E., Matthews B. A., Catania A. C. Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Sep;46(2):149–157. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. WILSON M. P. Periodic reinforcement interval and number of periodic reinforcements as parameters of response strength. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1954 Feb;47(1):51–56. doi: 10.1037/h0057224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Williams D. R. The structure of response rate. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3):251–258. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Zeiler M. D., Buchman I. B. Response requirements as constraints on output. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jul;32(1):29–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Zeiler M. D., Davis E. R. Clustering in the output of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):363–374. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Zeiler M. D. Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jul;11(4):405–414. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Zuriff G. E. A comparison of variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 May;13(3):369–374. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-369. [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