Abstract
In a two-key concurrent variable-interval schedule (using pigeons), if the reinforcement frequency for one response is held constant while that for the other is increased, the rate of response on the constant key decreases. The immediate reinforcement for key pecking can usually be conceptualized as the change from a condition in which the key light is on and the food hopper light is off to one in which the key light is off and the hopper light is on. The prechange condition is associated with a delay to food of one-half the average interreinforcement interval in effect during this condition. The postchange condition is associated with a delay to food of about .5 seconds. The programming of additional reinforcement results in a decrease in the delay to food associated with the prechange stimulus condition, and thus a decrease in the value of the improvement that results from the change. This would appear to be analogous to a decrease in the amount of reinforcement, and thus sufficient explanation for the decrease in the rate of the response.
Keywords: concurrent schedules, inhibiting effect of reinforcement, reinforcement magnitude, situation transition, stimulus change
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baum W. M. Chained concurrent schedules: reinforcement as situation transition. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):91–101. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W. M. The correlation-based law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:253–263. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Catania A. C. Self-inhibiting effects of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):517–526. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fantino E. Choice and rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):723–730. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nevin J. A. Response strength in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):389–408. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- PREMACK D. Toward empirical behavior laws. I. positive reinforcement. Psychol Rev. 1959 Jul;66(4):219–233. doi: 10.1037/h0040891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Rachlin H., Baum W. M. Response rate as a function of amount of reinforcement for a signalled concurrent response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jan;12(1):11–16. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]