Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1974 Mar;21(2):249–257. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-249

The role of elicited responding in behavioral contrast1

K Keller
PMCID: PMC1333192  PMID: 16811742

Abstract

An attempt was made to separate operant and elicited pecks occurring in multiple schedules of food reinforcement by moving the component stimuli to a second key, upon which pecks had no effect. The operant key stimulus was constant, regardless of the reinforcement schedule in effect. Experiments included two- and three-component multiple schedules and a comparison of the single-key and the two-key procedures. In general, conditions that typically produce positive contrast in single-key procedures reduced responding to the constant-stimulus key (induction) and increased responding to the component-stimulus key (contrast) in the two-key procedure. The results were interpreted as supporting the contention that two response classes, operant and elicited, are present in standard multiple schedules. In addition, elicited responses were strongly implicated in contrast phenomena.

Full text

PDF
249

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. Catania A. C. Reinforcement schedules: the role of responses preceding the one that produces the reinforcer. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 May;15(3):271–287. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Catania A. C., Reynolds G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3 Suppl):327–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Gamzu E. R., Williams D. R. Associative factors underlying the pigeon's key pecking in auto-shaping procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):225–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-225. [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. 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]
  8. Ricci J. A. Key pecking under response-independent food presentation after long simple and compound stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):509–516. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Schwartz B. Maintenance of key pecking by response-independent food presentation: the role of the modality of the signal for food. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):17–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schwartz B., Williams D. R. Two different kinds of key peck in the pigeon: some properties of responses maintained by negative and positive response-reinforcer contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):201–216. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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