Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 541–553 | Cite as

Effects of Response Requirements and Reinforcement Probability on the Latency to Depress a Foot Treadle

  • Terri Starin
  • Stephen Starin
Article

Abstract

Some previous studies have shown response latency to be a relatively sensitive measure of the effects of many experimental manipulations. However, when key pecking is the required response topography, the effects on latency of the independent variable may be confounded by respondent influences. The present study attempts to separate operant from respondent influences on response latency by requiring pigeons to depress a foot treadle, a topography unlikely to have respondent components. Three pigeons responded under a multiple fixed-ratio fixed-ratio schedule of food delivery with a 5-s intertriai interval. For two subjects, the independent variable was the number of responses required in each component. For another subject, the probability of reinforcement associated with each component constituted the independent variable. In general, response latencies were found to be shorter to the stimulus associated with the smaller response requirement or greater probability of reinforcement. However, unlike previous findings, these results were obtained only after quite large differences between response requirements or reinforcement probability were arranged. Further, birds reliably pecked the stimulus key even when this response was not required for reinforcement.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BROWN, P. L, & JENKINS, H. M. (1968). Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s key-peck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 1–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. BUSHNELL, M. C., & WEISS, S. J. (1980). An investigation of peak shift and behavioral contrast for autoshaped and operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33, 101–118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. CLARK, F., C. (1969). Effects of d-amphetamine on observing behavior in the squirrel monkey. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 977–987.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. DAVISON, M., & FERGUSON, A. (1978). The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 283–295.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. DAVOL, G. H., STEINHAUER, G. D., & LEE, A. (1977). The role of preliminary magazine training in acquisition of the autoshaped key peck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 28, 99–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. HESSE, B. E. (1984). Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer relationships in the determination of response latency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.Google Scholar
  7. HESSE, B. E., MICHAEL, J., WHITLEY, F. P., NUZZO, J., & SUNDBERG, M. L. (1984). Response latency as a function of fixed ratio size, probability of reinforcement, amount of reinforcement, delay to reinforcement, and Iti length. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  8. HIENZ, R. D., & ECKERMAN, D. A. (1974). Latency and frequency of responding under discrete-trial fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 341–345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. HOFFMAN, H. S., & FLESHLER, M. (1959). Aversive control with the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 213–218.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. KELLER, K. (1974). The role of elicited responding in behavioral contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 249–257.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. MCSWEENEY, F. K. (1978). Negative behavioral contrast on multiple treadle-press schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 463–473.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. SCHLINGER, H. D. (1985). The effects of reinforcement magnitude, probability of reinforcement, and Iti length on response latency: Stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.Google Scholar
  13. SCHWARTZ, B., & GAMZU, E. (1977). Pavlovian control of operant behavior. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 53–97). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. SKINNER, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. STARIN, S. (1987). Responding under homogeneous versus heterogeneous chained schedules. The Psychological Record, 37, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. STARIN, S. (1988). Preference for terminal-link key pecking in concurrent homogeneous and heterogeneous chains. The Psychological Record, 38, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. STARIN, S. (1989). Choice and terminal-link response topography. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 243–257.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. STEBBINS, W. C. (1962). Response latency as a function of amount of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 305–307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. STEBBINS, W. C., & LANSON, R. N. (1962). Response latency as a function of reinforcement schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 299–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. STEBBINS, W. C., & MILLER, J. F. (1964). Reaction time as a function of stimulus intensity for the monkey. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 309–312.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. WILLIAMS, D. R., & WILLIAMS, J. F. (1964). Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: Sustained pecking despite contingent nonreinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 511–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. WINOGRAD, E. (1965). Escape behavior under different fixed ratios and shock intensities. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 8, 117–124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terri Starin
    • 1
  • Stephen Starin
    • 2
  1. 1.Appalachee Center for Human ServicesWestern Michigan UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative ServicesTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations