Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1972 May;17(3):351–357. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-351

The role of the response-reinforcer contingency in negative automaintenance1

Barry Schwartz, David R Williams
PMCID: PMC1333910  PMID: 16811590

Abstract

When a response key is briefly illuminated before a grain reinforcer is presented, key pecking is reliably developed and maintained in pigeons, even if pecking prevents reinforcement (negative automaintenance). This experiment demonstrated that pigeons are sensitive to a negative response-reinforcer contingency, even though it does not eliminate responding. Within individual pigeons, two kinds of trials were compared: red key trials, in which reinforcement was negatively contingent on responding, and white key trials, in which reinforcement was unrelated to responding. Reinforcement frequency in non-contingent trials was yoked to the obtained reinforcement frequency in negatively contingent trials. All eight pigeons pecked substantially more on the non-contingent key than on the negative key, and preferred the non-contingent key to the negative key on occasional “choice” trials where both were presented together. When the stimuli correlated with the two conditions were reversed, the pigeons' behavior also shifted. These response differences are taken as evidence that pigeons are sensitive to the negative response-reinforcer contingency.

Full text

PDF
351

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. CHUNG S. H. EFFECTS OF EFFORT ON RESPONSE RATE. J Exp Anal Behav. 1965 Jan;8:1–7. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1965.8-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. Hogan J. A. Fighting and reinforcement in the Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens). J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1967 Oct;64(2):356–359. doi: 10.1037/h0088042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Schwartz B., Williams D. R. Discrete-trials spaced responding in the pigeon: the dependence of efficient performance on the availability of a stimulus for collateral pecking. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Sep;16(2):155–160. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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