The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 127–138 | Cite as

Concurrent Behavior and Response-Reinforcer Contiguity

  • Michael Keenan
  • Andrew A. Watt
Article

Abstract

The effects of response-food and lick-food contiguity were separately assessed on a modified recycling conjunctive FT 30 s FR 1 schedule of food reinforcement. Initial exposure to the unmodified schedule, with water freely available, produced low rate responding that was confined to the end of each cycle, whereas licking occupied a large proportion of the postreinforcement period. When response-food contiguity was programmed on the modified schedule there was a substantial increase in overall response rate, accompanied by fixed-interval-like patterning; there was very little change in licking. After a return to baseline conditions lick-food contiguity was programmed for each animal. For those animals who showed an increase in the frequency of lick-food contiguity lever pressing decreased dramatically, but there was very little change in overall rate and distribution of licking. In the final condition, removal of the drink bottle produced a slight increase in responding and a decrease in pause duration. These findings demonstrate an interdependence between licking and lever pressing on interval schedules.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ANDERSON, M. C., & SHETTLEWORTH, S. J. (1977). Behavioral adaption to fixed-interval and fixed-time food delivery in golden hamsters. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 33–49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. FALK, J. L. (1969). Conditions producing polydipsia in animals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 157, 569–593.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. IVERSEN, I. H. (1976). Interactions between reinforced responses and collateral responses. The Psychological Record, 26, 399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. JENKINS, H. M. (1970). Sequential organization in schedules of reinforcement. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 63–109). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. KELLEHER, R. T., & MORSE, W. H. (1968). Schedules using noxious stimuli: III. Responding maintained with response-produced electric shocks. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 819–838.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. LATTAL, K. A. (1974). Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 357–362.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. LYON, D. O. (1982). Concurrent behavior: Are the interpretations mutually exclusive? The Behavior Analyst, 5, 175–187. aiMORSE, W. H., & KELLEHER, R. T. (1970). Schedules as fundamental determinants of behavior. In W. N. Schoenfeld (Ed.), The theory of reinforcement schedules (pp. 139–185). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. MORSE, W. H., & KELLEHER, R. T. (1977). Determinants of reinforcement and punishment. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 174–200). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. NEVIN, J. A. (1979). Overall matching versus momentary maximizing: Nevin (1969) revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 300–306.Google Scholar
  12. PELLON, R., & BLACKMAN, D. E. (1987). Punishment of schedule-induced drinking in rats by signaled and unsignaled delays in food presentation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 417–434.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. RAY, R. D., & DELPRATO, D. J. (1989). Behavioral systems analysis: Methodological strategies and tactics. Behavioral Science, 34, 81–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. REBERG, D. (1980). Reinforcing the occurrence or non-occurrence of interim drinking. Animal Learning and Behavior, 8, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. RICHELLE, M., & LEJEUNE, H. (1980). Time in animal behavior. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  16. ROPER, T. J. (1978). Diversity and substitutability of adjunctive activities under fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 83–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. STADDON, J. E. R. (1977). Schedule-induced behavior. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 125–153). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. STADDON, J. E. R., & SIMMELHAG, V. L. (1971). The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptative behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. THOMAS, G. (1981). Contiguity, reinforcement rate and the law of effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33B, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ZEILER, M. D. (1984). The sleeping giant: Reinforcement schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 485–493.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Keenan
    • 1
  • Andrew A. Watt
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioural Analysis and Behavioural Biology Research CentreThe University of UlsterCo. LondonderryNorthern Ireland

Personalised recommendations