Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1975 Sep;24(2):157–171. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-157

Second-order schedules: discrimination of components1

Nancy Squires, James Norborg, Edmund Fantino
PMCID: PMC1333395  PMID: 16811868

Abstract

Pigeons were exposed to a series of second-order schedules in which the completion of a fixed number of fixed-interval components produced food. In Experiment 1, brief (2 sec) stimulus presentations occurred as each fixed-interval component was completed. During the brief-stimulus presentation terminating the last fixed-interval component, a response was required on a second key, the brief-stimulus key, to produce food. Responses on the brief-stimulus key before the last brief-stimulus presentation had no scheduled consequences, but served as a measure of the extent to which the final component was discriminated from preceding components. Whether there were one, two, four, or eight fixed-interval components, responses on the brief-stimulus key occurred during virtually every brief-stimulus presentation. In Experiment 2, an attempt was made to punish unnecessary responses on the brief-stimulus key, i.e., responses on the brief-stimulus key that occurred before the last component. None of the pigeons learned to withhold these responses, even though they produced a 15-sec timeout and loss of primary reinforcement. In Experiment 3, different key colors were associated with each component of a second-order schedule (a chain schedule). In contrast to Experiment 1, brief-stimulus key responses were confined to the last component. It was concluded that pigeons do not discriminate well between components of second-order schedules unless a unique exteroceptive cue is provided for each component. The relative discriminability of the components may account for the observed differences in initial-component response rates between comparable brief-stimulus, tandem, and chain schedules.

Keywords: second-order schedule, brief-stimulus presentations, chain schedule, conditioned reinforcement, temporal discrimination, fixed-interval schedule, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
162

Selected References

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

  1. AMSEL A., ROUSSEL J. Motivational properties of frustration. I. Effect on a running response of the addition of frustration to the motivational complex. J Exp Psychol. 1952 May;43(5):363–366. doi: 10.1037/h0059393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Byrd L. D., Marr M. J. Relations between patterns of responding and the presentation of stimuli under second-order schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):713–722. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dawson M. E. Cognition and conditioning: effects of masking the CS-UCS contingency on human GSR classical conditioning. J Exp Psychol. 1970 Sep;85(3):389–396. doi: 10.1037/h0029715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dawson M. E., Grings W. W. Comparison of classical conditioning and relational learning. J Exp Psychol. 1968 Feb;76(2):227–231. doi: 10.1037/h0025369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. GRINGS W. W., LOCKHART R. A. EFFECTS OF ''ANXIETY-LESSENING'' INSTRUCTIONS AND DIFFERENTIAL SET OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE EXTINCTION OF GSR. J Exp Psychol. 1963 Sep;66:292–299. doi: 10.1037/h0045094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. Gamzu E., Williams D. R. Classical conditioning of a complex skeletal response. Science. 1971 Mar 5;171(3974):923–925. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3974.923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jwaideh A. R. Responding under chained and tandem fixed-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):259–267. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. KELLEHER R. T., FRY W. T. Stimulus functions in chained fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Apr;5:167–173. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. KELLEHER R. T., GOLLUB L. R. A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:543–597. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Malagodi E. F., Deweese J., Johnston J. M. Second-order schedules: a comparison of chained, brief-stimulus, and tandem procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Nov;20(3):447–460. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Neuringer A. J., Chung S. H. Quasi-reinforcement: control of responding by a percentage-reinforcement schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Jan;10(1):45–54. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Squires N., Fantino E. A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jan;15(1):27–38. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stubbs A. Contiguity of briefly presented stimuli with food reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Mar;12(2):271–278. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Stubbs D. A. Second-order schedules and the problem of conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Nov;16(3):289–313. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. THOMAS J. R. MULTIPLE BASELINE INVESTIGATION OF STIMULUS FUNCTIONS IN AN FR CHAINED SCHEDULE. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 May;7:241–245. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Zimmerman J., Hanford P. V. Sustaining behavior with conditioned reinforcement as the only response-produced consequence. Psychol Rep. 1966 Oct;19(2):391–401. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.2.391. [DOI] [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