Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 143–151 | Cite as

Effect of Response Effort on Choice Behavior of Pigeons in Reinforcement Schedules Manipulating Distance between Operanda

  • Masanori KonoEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Choice Matching law Response effort Interresponse distance Key peck Pigeons 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Aparicio, C. F. (1999). The barrier choice paradigm: Haloperidol reduces sensitivity to reinforcement. Behavioural Processes, 48, 57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00073-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aparicio, C. F. (2001). Overmatching in rats: The barrier choice paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 93–106.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2001.75-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aparicio, C. F., & Baum, W. M. (1997). Comparing locomotion with lever-press travel in an operant simulation of foraging. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 177–192.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, W. M. (1982). Choice, changeover, and travel. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 35–49.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.38-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassini, M. H., Kacelnik, A., & Segura, E. T. (1990). The tale of the screaming hairy armadillo, the Guinea pig and the marginal value theorem. Animal Behaviour, 39, 1030–1050.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80776-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chelonis, J. J., Logue, A. W., Sheehy, R., & Mao, J. (1998). Effects of response effort on self-control in rats. Animal Learning & Behavior, 26, 408–415.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung, S.-H. (1965). Effects of effort on response rate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 8, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1965.8-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 723–730.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher, W. W., & Mazur, J. E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 387–410.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.
  14. Herrnstein, R. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horner, R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 719–732.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunter, I., & Davison, M. (1982). Independence of response force and reinforcement rate on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 183–197.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lea, S. (1979). Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon: Optimal and non-optimal aspects of choice. Animal Behaviour, 27, 875–886.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(79)90025-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Logue, A. W. (2002). The living legacy of the Harvard pigeon lab: Quantitative analysis in the wide world. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 357–366.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.77-357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Odum, A. (2011). Delay discounting: I’m a k, you’re a k. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 427–439.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2011.96-423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stevens, J. R., Rosati, A. G., Ross, K. R., & Hauser, M. D. (2005). Will travel for food: Spatial discounting in two new world monkeys. Current Biology, 15, 1855–1860.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.09.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vaanholt, L. M., De Jong, B., Garland, T., Daan, S., & Visser, G. H. (2007). Behavioural and physiological responses to increased foraging effort in male mice. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210, 2013–2024.  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.001974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities & Social SciencesMeisei UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations