Positive behavioral contrast as a function of time-out duration when pigeons peck keys on a within-session procedure (original) (raw)
Related papers
Suppression by reinforcement, a model for multiple-schedule behavioral contrast
Behavioural Processes, 1987
MC Sweeney, F.K., 1987. Suppresion by reinforcement, a model for multiple-schedule behaviroral contrast. Behav. Process., The present paper argues that multiple-schedule behavioral contrast occurs because delayed reinforcers suppress behavior. According to this idea, some reinforcers delivered in the second component of a multiple schedule suppress responding during the first component because they follow that responding after a delay.
Behavioral contrast as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement
Learning & Behavior, 1986
Three experiments examined changes in size of multiple-schedule behavioral contrast with changes in an independent variable. Experiment 1 found that positive contrast generally increased with increases in component duration when pigeons pressed treadles. Experiments 2 and 3 found that positive and negative contrast generally increased with increases in the baseline rates of reinforcement when pigeons pecked keys. The experiments show
A re-examination of local contrast in multiple schedules1
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975
Pigeons were presented with multiple schedules of alternating 90-sec components. When components in which grain was never presented alternated with components in which grain was presented on a variable-interval schedule, the average rate of responding in the variable-interval components increased, showing overall positive behavioral contrast. Unlike previous reports, this study found that the response rates for all birds increased toward the end of the variable-interval components as training proceeded. This increase in local response rate disappeared when the multiple schedule was composed solely of variable-interval components and reappeared when the variable-interval components were again alternated with extinction. This finding cannot be predicted or explained by recent theories of behavioral contrast based on autoshaping, and thus questions their sufficiency. We suggest that this local response-rate increase results from the predictable change from high to low density of reinforcement at the end of the fixed-duration component. Thus, the present effect apparently illustrates a different type of interaction between components of a multiple schedule than that described by previous theories of contrast. In a given procedure, either or both types of interaction may occur; neither provides a complete account of behavioral contrast.
A Theory of Behavioral Contrast
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
The reinforcers that maintain target instrumental responses also reinforce other responses that compete with target responses for expression. This competition and its imbalance at points of transition between different schedules of reinforcement causes behavioral contrast. A model for this theory is constructed by expanding the coupling coefficient of MPR (Killeen, 1994). The coupling coefficient gives the degree of association of a reinforcer with the target response (as opposed to other competing responses). Competing responses, often identified as interim or adjunctive or superstitious behavior, are intrinsic to reinforcement schedules, especially interval schedules. In addition to that base-rate of competition, additional competing responses may spill over from the prior component, causing initial contrast; and they may be modulated by conditioned reinforcement or punishment from stimuli associated with subsequent component change, causing terminal contrast. A formalization of these hypotheses employed (a) a hysteresis model of off-target responses giving rise to initial contrast, and (b) a competing traces model of the suppression or enhancement of ongoing competitive responses by signals of following-schedule transition. The theory was applied to transient contrast, the following schedule effect, and the component duration effect.
Learning & Behavior, 2004
Pigeons’ keypecking was reinforced by food on baseline schedules of multiple variable interval (VI)x VIx and on contrast schedules of multiple VIx VIy. Deprivation of food was varied by maintaining subjects at 75%, 85%, and 95% (±2%) of their free-feeding weights. Positive and negative behavioral contrast were observed. The size of the contrast was not systematically altered by changes in deprivation. Positive and negative contrast were both larger later in the session than they were earlier. Withinsession decreases in responding were steeper for the baseline than for the contrast schedules for positive contrast. Within-session decreases were steeper for the contrast than for the baseline schedules for negative contrast. These results were predicted by the idea that different amounts of habituation to the reinforcer during the baseline and contrast schedules contribute to behavioral contrast. The results show that contrast occurs under conditions that reduce the effect of the following component. The results support the assumption that positive and negative contrast are produced by symmetrical theoretical variables.
Behavioral contrast using different reinforcers: effect of baseline rate of reinforcement
Behavioural Processes, 1998
The present study determined whether behavioral contrast would occur when different reinforcers were delivered in the different components and whether its size would vary at different baseline rates of reinforcement. Pigeons pecked keys on a multiple variable-interval schedule. Mixed grain was the reinforcer in one component and wheat was the reinforcer in the other component. In contrast conditions, the rate of wheat reinforcement was increased or decreased, from the baseline delivery rate, by a factor of four. Contrast was studied at four different baseline rates of reinforcement. Contrast was usually observed and its size almost always varied directly with the programmed baseline rate of reinforcement. The present results indicate that changes in the condition of reinforcement of a different reinforcer can produce contrast. They also broaden the potential implications of behavioral contrast.
Journal of the …, 1981
Eight pigeons pecked keys under multiple variable-interval two-minute variable-interval two-minute schedules. In Experiment 1, the reinforcers were 2, 4, or 8 seconds access to a food magazine. In Experiments 2 and 3, the reinforcers were grains that had been determined to be most-, moderately-, or non-preferred. Both positive and negative behavioral contrast occurred when the reinforcers in one component were held constant and the duration or type of reinforcer obtained in the other component varied. Undermatching occurred when the relative rate of responding during a component was plotted as a function of the relative duration of the reinforcers in that component.
Preference for a Stimulus that Follows a Relatively Aversive Event: Contrast or Delay Reduction?
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2007
Several types of contrast effects have been identified including incentive contrast, anticipatory contrast, and behavioral contrast. proposed a type of contrast that appears to be different from these others and called it within-trial contrast. In this form of contrast the relative value of a reinforcer depends on the events that occur immediately prior to the reinforcer. Reinforcers that follow relatively aversive events are preferred over those that follow less aversive events. In many cases the delay reduction hypothesis proposed by Fantino (1969) also can account for such effects. The current experiments provide a direct test of the delay reduction and contrast hypotheses by manipulating the schedule of reinforcement while holding trial duration constant. In Experiment 1, preference for fixed-interval (FI) versus differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedules of reinforcement was assessed. Some pigeons preferred one schedule over the other while others demonstrated a position (side) preference. Thus, no systematic preference was found. In Experiment 2, a simultaneous color discrimination followed the FI or DRO schedule, and following training, preference was assessed by presenting the two positive stimuli simultaneously. Consistent with the contrast hypothesis, pigeons showed a significant preference for the positive stimulus that in training had followed their less preferred schedule.
Contrast effects in response rate and accuracy of delayed matching to sample
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2008
Behavioural contrast is an inverse relation between the response rate in one component of a multiple schedule and the reinforcer rate in an alternated component. To explore possible contrast effects in accuracy as well as response rate, four pigeons were trained in multiple schedules where key pecking produced delayed matching-to-sample trials on a variable-interval schedule. Reinforcer probability for correct matches was constant at .3 in one component, and the conditions of reinforcement were varied in the second component. In Experiment 1, the varied component arranged the same contingencies as the constant component but with reinforcer probabilities of .9 or .1 across conditions. In the varied component, both response rate and accuracy of delayed matching were directly related to reinforcer probability; in the constant component, however, contrast effects on response rate were weak, and there was no evidence of contrast in accuracy of matching. In Experiment 2, the varied component was either variable interval with immediate food reinforcement or extinction. Reliable contrast effects were obtained in both response rate and in accuracy of matching in the constant component, and their magnitudes were correlated within and between subjects. The results of Experiment 2 join previous findings of covariation in the effects of reinforcement on free-operant responding and accuracy of discrimination.