The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 239–257 | Cite as

The Role of Contiguity in Free-Operant Unsignaled Delay of Positive Reinforcement: A Brief Review

  • Susan M. Schneider
Articles

Abstract

The temporal contiguity between responses and consequences is an important variable in operant conditioning. This paper examines a selected portion of the empirical literature relevant to the role of contiguity: that of free-operant unsignaled delay of positive reinforcement. Two main issues are addressed: the extent to which this literature supports a role for contiguity, and, comparisons of qualitative and quantitative aspects of contiguity effects across the literature. In contrast to some other literatures, no clearcut exceptions to support for contiguity were found. In addition, quantitative effects were consistent within procedure, offering promise for efforts at a comprehensive quantitative theory.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ALLEMAN, H. D., & ZEILER, M. D. (1974). Patterning with fixed-time schedules of response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APPEL, J. B., & HISS, R. H. (1962). The discrimination of contingent from noncontingent reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 37–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ARBUCKLE, J. L, & LATTAL, K. A. (1988). Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AZZI, R., FIX, D. S. R., KELLER, F. S., & ROCHA E SILVA, M. I. (1964). Exteroceptive control of response under delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BACOTTI, A. V. (1976). Home cage feeding time controls responding under multiple schedules. Animal Learning & Behavior, 4, 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BARRETT, J. E. (1975). Conjunctive schedules of reinforcement II: Response requirements and stimulus effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BLACK, J., BELLUZZI, J. D., & STEIN, L. (1985). Reinforcement delay of one second severely impairs acquisition of brain self-stimulation. Brain Research, 359, 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BURGESS, I. S. (1981). Resistance to response-independent reinforcement produced by different schedules of reinforcement: Ratio versus interval schedules. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.), Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour (pp. 469–472). Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. BURGESS, I. S., & WEARDEN, J. H. (1981). Resistance to the response- decrementing effects of response-independent reinforcement produced by delay and non-delay schedules of reinforcement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33B, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CAMPBELL, P. E., & KNOUSE, S. B. (1972). Extinction following delayed reward: A review. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 4 (15; Serial No. 63), 257–268.Google Scholar
  11. CATANIA, A. C, & KELLER, K. J. (1981). Contingency, contiguity, correlation, and the concept of causation. In P. Harzern & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Predictability, correlation, and contiguity (pp. 125–167). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. D’ANDREA, T. (1971). Avoidance of timeout from response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DEWS, P. B. (1960). Free-operant behavior under conditions of delayed reinforcement: I. CRF-type schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 3, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DEWS, P. B. (1969). Studies on responding under fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement: The effects on the pattern of responding of changes in requirements at reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DEWS, P. B. (1981). Effects of delay of reinforcement on the rate of steady-state responding. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.), Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour (pp. 215–229). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. EDWARDS, D. D., PEEK, V., & WOLFE, F. (1970). Independently delivered food decelerates fixed-ratio rates. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FANTINO, E., ABARCA, N., & DUNN, R. (1987). The delay-reduction hypothesis: Extensions to foraging and three-alternative choice. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 309–327). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. GLEESON, S., & LATTAL, K. A. (1987). Response-reinforcer relations and the maintenance of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. GONZALEZ, F. A., & NEWLIN, R. J. (1976). Effects of a delay-reinforcement procedure on performance under Irt>t schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. HACKENBERG, T. D. (1987). When we speak of integrating … The Behavior Analysts 10, 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. HAMMOND, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. HENDRICKS, S. E., & GERALL, A. A. (1970). Acquisition and extinction of an instrumental response as a function of delay of intracranial stimulation reward and amount of training. Psychonomic Science, 19, 187–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. HENTON, W. W., & IVERSEN, I. H. (1978). Classical conditioning and operant conditioning. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. HINELINE, P. N. (1984). Aversive control: A separate domain? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IMAM, A. A., & LATTAL, K. A. (1988). Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IVERSEN, I. H. (1986). Time allocation, sequential, and kinematic analyses of behaviors controlled by an aperiodic reinforcement schedule. The Psychological Record, 36, 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. KEENAN, M., & LESLIE, J. C. (1984). Separating response dependency and response-reinforcer contiguity within a recycling conjunctive schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. KEENAN, M., & LESLIE, J. C. (1986). Varying response-reinforcer contiguity in a recycling conjunctive schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. KELLER, J. V. (1970). Behavioral contrast under multiple delays of reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 20, 257–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. LACHTER, G. D. (1973). Response-reinforcer relationships in variable delay and non-contingent schedules of reinforcement. Psychological Reports, 33, 627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. LATTAL, K. A. (1972). Response-reinforcer independence and conventional extinction after fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LATTAL, K. A. (1973). Response-reinforcer dependence and independence in multiple and mixed schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LATTAL, K. A. (1974). Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 357–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. LATTAL, K. A. (1984). Signal functions in delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. LATTAL, K. A. (1987). Considerations in the experimental analysis of reinforcement delay. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 107–123). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. LATTAL, K. A., & Boyer, S. S. (1980). Alternative reinforcement effects on fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. LATTAL, K. A., & GLEESON, S. (1988, May). Response acquisition with delayed reinforcement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  38. LATTAL, K. A., & ZIEGLER, D. R. (1982). Briefly delayed reinforcement: An interresponse time analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. LESLIE, J. C. (1981). Effects of variations in local reinforcement rate on local response rate in variable interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MAZUR, J. E. (1984). Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 426–436.Google Scholar
  41. MAZUR, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. 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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. MCDOWELL, J. J. (1987). A mathematical theory of reinforcer value and its application to reinforcement delay in simple schedules. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 77–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. MELLITZ, M., HINELINE, P. N., WHITEHOUSE, W. G., & LAURENCE, M. T. (1983). Duration-reduction of avoidance sessions as negative reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MORGAN, M. J. (1970). Fixed interval schedules and delay of reinforcement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 663–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MOWRER, O. H. (1960). Learning theory and behavior. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. NEURINGER, A. J. (1970). Superstitious key pecking after three peck-produced reinforcements. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. PEARCE, J. M., & HALL, G. (1978). Overshadowing the instrumental conditioning of a lever-press response by a more valid predictor of the reinforcer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 356–367.Google Scholar
  48. POWERS, R. B. (1968). Clock-delivered reinforcers in conjunctive and interlocking schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 579–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. RACHLIN, H., & BAUM, W. M. (1972). Effects of alternative reinforcement: Does the source matter? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. RENNER, K. E. (1964). Delay of reinforcement: A historical review. Psychological Bulletin, 61, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. RESCORLA, R. A., & SKUCY, J. C. (1969). Effect of response-independent reinforcers during extinction. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 67, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. REYNOLDS, G. S. (1975). A primer of operant conditioning (2nd ed.). Glenview, II: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  53. RICHARDS, R. W. (1981). A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. RICHARDS, R. W., & HITTESDORF, W. M. (1978). Inhibitory stimulus control under conditions of signalled and unsignalled delay of reinforcement. The Psychological Record, 28, 615–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. ROYALTY, P., WILLIAMS, B. A., & FANTINO, E. (1987). Effects of delayed conditioned reinforcement in chain schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. SCHAAL, D. W., & BRANCH, M. N. (1988). Responding of pigeons under variable-interval schedules of unsignaled, briefly signaled, and completely signaled delays to reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. SCHOENFELD, W. N., & FARMER, J. (1970). Reinforcement schedules and the “behavior stream.” In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 215–245). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  58. SHULL, R. L. (1970). The response-reinforcement dependency in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. SHULL, R. L. (1971). Postreinforcement pause duration on fixed-interval and fixed-time schedules of food reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 23, 77–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. SIDMAN, M. (1956). Time discrimination and behavioral interaction in a free operant situation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 49, 469–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. SIZEMORE, O. J., & LATTAL, K. A. (1977). Dependency, temporal contiguity, and response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. SIZEMORE, O. J., & LATTAL, K. A. (1978). Unsignalled delay of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. SKINNER, B. F. (1936). The effect on the amount of conditioning of an interval of time before reinforcement. Journal of General Psychology 14, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. SKINNER, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  65. SMITH, J. B., & CLARK, F. C. (1972). Two temporal parameters of food postponement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. STADDON, J. E. R., & FRANK, J. A. (1975). The role of the peck-food contingency on fixed-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. TARPY, R. M., & ROBERTS, J. E. (1985). Effects of signaled reward in instrumental conditioning: Enhanced learning on DRL and DRH schedules of reinforcement. Animal Learning and Behavior, 13, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. TARPY, R. M., ROBERTS, J. E., LEA, S. E. G., & MIDGLEY, M. (1984). The stimulus-response overshadowing phenomenon with VI versus FI schedules of reinforcement. Animal Learning and Behavior, 12, 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. TARPY, R. M., & SAWABINI, F. L. (1974). Reinforcement delay: A selective review of the last decade. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 984–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. WEIL, J. L. (1984). The effects of delayed reinforcement on free-operant responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. WILKIE, D. M. (1972). The peak shift and behavioral contrast: Effects of discrimination training with delayed reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 26, 257–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. WILLIAMS, B. A. (1976). The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. WILLIAMS, B. A. (1983). Revising the principle of reinforcement. Behaviorism, 11, 63–88.Google Scholar
  74. ZEILER, M. D. (1968). Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. ZEILER, M. D. (1976a). Conjunctive schedules of response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ZEILER, M. D. (1976b). Positive reinforcement and the elimination of reinforced responses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ZIMMERMAN, D. W. (1971). Rate changes after unscheduled omission and presentation of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan M. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySt. Olaf CollegeNorthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations