The Psychological Record

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 75–84 | Cite as

Percentage Reinforcement and Behavioral Contrast in Chain Schedules

  • Stephen B. Kendall
Article

Abstract

Intermittent reinforcement may lead to higher response rates than 100% reinforcement when it is delayed and when there are stimuli during the delay that are correlated with the type of delay (reinforced or nonreinforced). Two experiments were carried out to evaluate the hypothesis that this effect is due to the same variables that are hypothesized to control behavioral contrast. In Experiment 1 two chain schedules were arranged so that any contrast effect should appear in the chain terminating with 100% reinforcement rather than in the chain with 50% reinforcement. In Experiment 2 an intertrial interval was employed to increase the amount of contrast in all chains and possibly wipe out the intermittent reinforcement effect. Increasing the intertrial interval did lead to a contrast effect, but did not eliminate the effect of intermittent reinforcement. Some other mechanism, possibly the value of conditioned reinforcement, is responsible for this effect.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BRANCH, M. 1977. Signalled and unsignalled percentage reinforcement of performance under a chained schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. FANTINO, E. 1977. Conditioned reinforcement: Choice and information. In W.K. Honig & J.E.R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. FANTINO, E., DUNN, R., & MECK, W. 1979. Percentage reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. KENDALL, S.B. 1973. Effects of two procedures for varying information transmission on observing responses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. KENDALL, S.B. 1974. Preference for intermittent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. KENDALL, S.B. 1975. Enhancement of conditioned reinforcement by uncertainty. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MICHAEL, J.L. 1979. Reinforcement magnitude and the inhibiting effect of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. RACHLIN, H. 1973. Contrast and matching. Psychological Review, 80, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. SCHWARTZ, B., & GAMZU, E. 1977. Pavlovian control of operant behavior. In W.K. Honig & J.E.R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. STADDON, J.E.R., & INNIS, N.K. 1969. Reinforcement omission in fixed-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. WILLIAMS, B.A. 1979. Contrast, component duration, and the following schedule of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 379–396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. WILTON, R.N. 1972. The role of information in the emission of observing responses and partial reinforcement acquisition phenomena. Learning and Motivation, 3, 479–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. WILTON, R.N., & CLEMENTS, R.O. 1971. Observing responses and informative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen B. Kendall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations