Effect of Response Effort on Choice Behavior of Pigeons in Reinforcement Schedules Manipulating Distance between Operanda
Previous studies have shown that choice behavior in pigeons is systematically affected by the response effort, such as force or locomotion between response keys, as well as a delay in reinforcement or the amount of reinforcement. The present study aimed to investigate choice behavior in reinforcement schedules in which distance between operanda was manipulated as a response effort from the point of view of generalized matching law. To do so, a distance schedule was developed to manipulate the distance between response keys. In this schedule, pigeons were required to produce either 4 or 10 responses. Interresponse distances, a measure of the distance as a response effort, were calculated by summing the distances between the locations of successive responses. The present study employed a concurrent-chain design in which variable-interval schedules and distance schedules formed the initial and terminal links, respectively, of the concurrent chain. The results showed a matching relation between the initial-links response ratio and the interresponse distance ratio in a condition where 10 responses were required in terminal-links, but not in the condition with 4 responses. This implies that response effort is an important factor in determining choice behavior, as well as other factors including rate or amount of reinforcement or delay in reinforcement. However, the present results could be confounded by the effects of the elapsed time before reinforcement. Thus, further research will be needed using a modified version of the present distance-choice procedure to isolate the effect of distance itself.
KeywordsChoice Matching law Response effort Interresponse distance Key peck Pigeons
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.
All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
- Cuvo, A. J., Lerch, L. J., Leurquin, D. A., Gaffaney, T. J., & Poppen, R. L. (1998). Response allocation to concurrent fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with work requirements by adults with mental retardation and typical preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fonseca, I. A. T., Passos, R. L. F., Araujo, F. A., Lima, M. R. M., Lacerda, D. R., Pires, W. . . . R., & C, L. O. (2014). Exercising for food: Bringing the laboratory closer to nature. Journal of Experimental Biology, 217, 3274–3282. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.108191.
- Mazur, J. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. Commons, J. Mazur, J. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior, Vol. 5: The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Reilly, M. P., Posadas-Sánchez, D., Kettle, L. C., & Killeen, P. R. (2012). Rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columbia livia) are sensitive to the distance to food, but only rats request more food when distance increases. Behavioural Processes, 91, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2012.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar