Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1980 Nov;34(3):297–304. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-297

The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior

Lynn J Hammond
PMCID: PMC1333008  PMID: 16812191

Abstract

The problem of maintaining independence between response rates and reinforcement probabilities when determining the effect of varying the response-reinforcement contingency upon free-operant behavior was solved by programming local reinforcement probabilities for response and no response on a second-by-second basis. Fifty-seven rats were trained to lever-press on schedules of water reinforcement involving different values of contingency. All rats were first trained on a high positive contingency and then shifted to less positive, zero, or negative contingencies. Under these conditions, rate of lever-pressing declined appropriately when the contingency between response and reinforcement decreased or was made negative. The decline in rate produced by a zero contingency cannot be attributed to extinction, since the probability of reinforcement given the occurrence of a response was the same as for the positive contingency from which the shift to zero was made. That is, there was no change in the opportunity for response-reinforcement contiguity. It was concluded that the technique of programming local reinforcement probabilities offers promise for more critical examinations of the effects of contingency upon free-operant behavior.

Keywords: contingency, appetitive conditioning

Full text

PDF
297

Selected References

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

  1. Baum W. M., Rachlin H. C. Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):861–874. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gibbon J., Berryman R., Thompson R. L. Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):585–605. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Herrnstein R. J., Hineline P. N. Negative reinforcement as shock-frequency reduction. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jul;9(4):421–430. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lattal K. A. Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):357–362. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Millenson J. R. Random interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jul;6(3):437–443. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Neffinger G. G., Gibbon J. Partial avoidance contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 May;23(3):437–450. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES