Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1987 Nov;48(3):383–393. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-383

Response–reinforcer relations and the maintenance of behavior

Suzanne Gleeson, Kennon A Lattal
PMCID: PMC1338761  PMID: 16812499

Abstract

The effects on pigeons' key pecking of unsignaled delays of reinforcement and response-independent reinforcement were compared after either variable-interval or differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate baseline schedules. One 30-min session arranging delayed reinforcement and one 30-min session arranging response-independent reinforcement were conducted daily, 6 hr apart. A within-subject yoked-control procedure equated reinforcer frequency and distribution across the two sessions. Response rates usually were reduced more by response-independent than by delayed but response-contingent delivery of reinforcers. Under both schedules, response rates were lower when obtained delays were greater. These results bear upon methodological and conceptual issues regarding comparisons of contingencies that change the temporal response–reinforcer relations.

Keywords: variable-interval schedules, differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules, variable-time schedules, response-independent reinforcement, unsignaled delay of reinforcement, contiguity, correlation, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
384

Selected References

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

  1. Baum W. M. The correlation-based law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. CHURCH R. M. SYSTEMATIC EFFECT OF RANDOM ERROR IN THE YOKED CONTROL DESIGN. Psychol Bull. 1964 Aug;62:122–131. doi: 10.1037/h0042733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. DEWS P. B. Free-operant behavior under conditions of delayed reinforcement. I. CRF-type schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1960 Jul;3:221–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1960.3-221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hammond L. J. The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Nov;34(3):297–304. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hawkes L., Shimp C. P. Reinforcement of behavioral patterns: shaping a scallop. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jan;23(1):3–16. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):119–125. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Sizemore O. J., Lattal K. A. Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):169–175. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Williams B. A. The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):441–449. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-441. [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