Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1989 Jan;51(1):101–117. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-101

Response–reinforcer dependency location in interval schedules of reinforcement

Kennon A Lattal, Timothy J Freeman, Thomas S Critchfield
PMCID: PMC1338895  PMID: 16812573

Abstract

In five experiments we studied the effects on pigeons' key pecking of the location of four or more successive response-dependent reinforcers imbedded in a schedule arranging otherwise response-independent reinforcers. In Experiment 1, high local response rates early in the session were extended farther into the session as the number of response-dependent reinforcers at the beginning of the session increased. A block of four successive response-dependent reinforcers then was scheduled at the beginning, middle, or end of the session (Experiment 2) resulting in higher local response rates at those times in the session when the response-dependent reinforcers were arranged. When placed in random locations in successive sessions (Experiment 3), uniform local rates occurred throughout the session. In Experiments 1, 2, and 3, delivery of the remaining response-independent reinforcers was precluded until the response-dependent reinforcers were collected. Experiment 4 was similar to Experiments 1 and 2, except that all response-independent reinforcers occurred irrespective of whether the response-dependent reinforcers had been collected. This yielded results similar to those obtained in the first two experiments. In Experiment 5, responding early in the session had no consequence other than allowing access to the schedule of response-independent food delivery. As in the first experiment, local rates generally were higher early in the session. The results indicate that the location of response–reinforcer dependencies precisely control behavior and that such effects often are not captured by descriptions of behavior in terms of overall response rates.

Keywords: variable-interval schedule, variable-time schedule, response–reinforcer dependency, response-independent food delivery, response–reinforcer dependency location, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
101

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. Commons M. L. Decision rules and signal detectability in a reinforcement-density discrimination. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jul;32(1):101–120. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dews P. B. The effect of multiple S periods on responding on a fixed-interval schedule: IV. Effect of continuous S with only short S probes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Mar;9(2):147–151. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-147. [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. Keenan M., Leslie J. C. Separating response dependency and response-reinforcer contiguity within a recycling conjunctive schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Mar;41(2):203–210. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lattal K. A., Bryan A. J. Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):495–504. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lattal K. A. Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):357–362. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lattal K. A. Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Mar;23(2):241–246. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lattal K. A. Reinforcement contingencies as discriminative stimuli: II. Effects of changes in stimulus probability. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lattal K. A. Response-reinforcer dependence and independence in multiple and mixed schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Sep;20(2):265–271. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Neuringer A. Pigeons respond to produce periods in which rewards are independent of responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):39–54. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nevin J. A., Smith L. D., Roberts J. Does contingent reinforcement strengthen operant behavior? J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Jul;48(1):17–33. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rachlin H., Baum W. M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):231–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Zeiler M. D. Elimination of reinforced behavior: intermittent schedules of not-responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):23–32. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Zeiler M. D. Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jul;11(4):405–414. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Zeiler M. D. Positive reinforcement and the elimination of reinforced responses. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jul;26(1):37–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-37. [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