Abstract
Four crows were trained to key peck for food. Then, they were exposed to a positive response contingency that required them to peck the key when it was illuminated briefly (the trial) in order to receive food. This procedure resulted in consistent within-trial pecking. When the contingency changed so that food was presented at the end of a trial when no response occurred, but the trial terminated immediately and food was omitted when a response occurred (negative response contingency), responding decreased markedly. Eight pigeons were studied under the same change in contingencies. These birds varied in their response histories from naive to having several years' experience. The previously naive pigeons also showed rapid declines in responding under the negative contingency; the responding of the birds with extended training histories declined much more slowly. Eventually, however, six of the eight pigeons showed little or no responding under the negative contingency, while they responded consistently when re-exposed to the positive contingency. These findings question the power and the generality of the negative automaintenance phenomenon.
Keywords: negative automaintenance, food-omission contingency, stimulus-correlated food schedule, history of reinforcement, key peck, crows, pigeons
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Barrera F. J. Centrifugal selection of signal-directed pecking. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):341–355. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gamzu E., Schwam E. Autoshaping and automaintenance of a key-press response in squirrel monkeys. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Mar;21(2):361–371. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Food-avoidance in hungry pigeons, and other perplexities. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Nov;18(3):369–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hursh S. R., Navarick D. J., Fantino E. "Automaintenance": the role of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):117–124. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Powell R. W. Comparison of differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) performance in pigeons (Columba livia) and crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1974 Apr;86(4):736–746. doi: 10.1037/h0036167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz B., Williams D. R. The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 May;17(3):351–357. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stiers M., Silberberg A. Lever-contact responses in rats: automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Nov;22(3):497–506. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wessells M. G. The effects of reinforcement upon the prepecking behaviors of pigeons in the autoshaping experiment. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):125–144. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]