Advertisement

Concurrent Schedules: Response versus Reinforcement Interaction

  • Iver H. Iversen

Abstract

The fact is now well established that presentation of reinforcers contingent upon a specific response will usually increase the rate of that response, and subsequent removal of reinforcers will decrease the response rate (Skinner, 1938). Skinner once briefly introduced and quickly withdrew a principle stating that the rate (strength) of one response (R) might be directly proportional to the absolute reinforcement rate (r) for that response; expressed mathematically,
$$ R = Kr. $$
(1)
.

Keywords

Lever Press Reinforcement Rate Concurrent Schedule Pellet Delivery Ongoing Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alleman, H. D., and Zeiler, M. D.: Patterning with fixed-time schedules of response-independent reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 22, 135–141, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacotti, A. V.: Matching under concurrent fixed-ratio variable-interval schedules of food presentation. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 27, 171–182, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, W. M.: The correlation-based law of effect. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 20, 137–153, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, W. M.: On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 22, 231–242, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boren, J. J.: Stimulus probes of the fixed ratio run. Paper delivered at Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, 1961.Google Scholar
  6. Browne, M. P., and Dinsmoor, J. A.: Selective observing of discriminative stimuli. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972, pp. 745–746.Google Scholar
  7. Brownstein, A. J., and Pliskoff, S. S.: Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 11, 683–688, 1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buel, C. L.: Investigation of the temporal parameters in omission training with humans in a two-key situation. Psychol. Record, 25, 99–109, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, J. G., and Aroksaar, R. E.: Effects of time-out upon concurrent operant responding. Psychol. Record, 20, 365–371, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. Catania, A. C.: Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 6, 253–263, 1963.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catania, A. C.: Concurrent operants. In, W. K. Honig (ed.): Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. Catania, A. C.: Concurrent performances: inhibition of one response by reinforcement of another. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 12, 731–744, 1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catania, A. C.: Self-inhibiting effects of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 19, 517–526, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Catania, A. C., and Dobson, R.: Concurrent performances: rate and accuracy of free-operant oddity responding. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 17, 25–35, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Catania, A. C., and Reynolds, G. S.: A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 11, 327–383, 1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Catania, A. C., Silverman, P. J., and Stubbs, D. A.: Concurrent performances: stimulus-control gradients during schedules of signaled and unsignaled concurrent reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 21, 99–107, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chung, S. H.: Effects of delayed reinforcement in a concurrent situation. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 8, 439–444, 1965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chung, S. H., and Herrnstein, R. J.: Choice and delay of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 10, 67–74, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, H., Iriye, C., and Hubbard, J.: Response independent food as an extinction procedure for responding on DRL schedules. Psychol. Record, 23, 33–38, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, J., and Bitterman, M. E.: Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO): a yoked-con-trol comparison. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 15, 237–241, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deluty, M. Z.: Choice and the rate of punishment in concurrent schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 25, 75–80, 1976a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deluty, M. Z.: Excitatory and inhibitory effects of free reinforcers. Anim. Learning Behav., 4, 436–440, 1976b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. deVilliers, P.: Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In, W. K. Honig and J. E. R. Staddon (eds.): Handbook of Operant Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  24. Dunham, P. J.: Punishment: method and theory. Psychol. Rev., 78, 58–70, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunham, P. J.: Some effects of punishment upon unpunished responding. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 17, 443–450, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards, D. D., Peek, V., and Wolfe, F.: Independently delivered food decelerates fixed ratio rates. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 14, 301–307, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fenner, D. H.: Key pecking in pigeons maintained by short-interval adventitious schedules of reinforcement. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1969, pp. 831–832.Google Scholar
  28. Ferster, C. B.: Concurrent schedules of reinforcement in the chimpanzee. Science, 125, 1090–1091, 1957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferster, C. B.: A complex concurrent schedule of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 2, 65–80, 1959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferster, C. B., and Skinner, B. F.: Schedules of Reinforcement. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Findley, J. D.: Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 1, 123–144, 1958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fleshier, M., and Hoffman, H. S.: A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 5, 529–530, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henton, W. W.: Avoidance response rates during a pre-food stimulus in monkeys. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 17, 269–275, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henton, W. W., and Iversen, I. H.: Concurrent response rates during pre-event stimuli. Paper presented at the Easter Conference: English Experimental Analysis of Behavior Group, Cambridge, March 1973.Google Scholar
  35. Herbert, E. W.: Two-key concurrent responding: response-reinforcement dependencies and blackout. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 14, 61–70, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herrnstein, R. J.: Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 4, 267–272, 1961.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herrnstein, R. J.: On the law of effect. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 13, 243–266, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Herrnstein, R. J.: Formal properties of the matching law. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 21, 159–164, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Iversen, I. H.: Behavioral interactions in concurrent reinforcement schedules. Paper presented at Easter Conference of the English Experimental Analysis of Behavior Group, Bangor, April 1974.Google Scholar
  40. Iversen, I. H.: Reciprocal response interactions in concurrent variable-interval and discrete-trial fixed-ratio schedules. Scand. J. Psychol., 16, 280–284, 1975a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Iversen, I. H.: Response versus reinforcement interaction in concurrent reinforcement schedules. Paper presented at Easter Conference of the English Experimental Analysis of Behavior Group. Exeter, March 1975b.Google Scholar
  42. Iversen, I. H.: Interactions between reinforced responses and collateral responses. Psychol. Record, 26, 399–413, 1976.Google Scholar
  43. Kantor, J. R., and Smith, N. W.: The Science of Psychology: An Interbehavioral Survey. Chicago, Ill., Principia Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  44. Katz, R. C.: Effects of punishment in an alternative response context as a function of relative reinforcement rate. Psychol. Record. 23, 65–74, 1973.Google Scholar
  45. Kimble, G. A.: Foundations of Conditioning and Learning. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.Google Scholar
  46. LaBounty, C. E., and Reynolds, G. S.: An analysis of response and time matching to reinforcement in concurrent ratio-interval schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 19, 155–166, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lachter, G. D.: Some temporal parameters of non-contingent reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 16, 207–217, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lattal, K. A.: Response-reinforcer independence and conventional extinction after fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 18, 133–140, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lattal, K. A.: Response-reinforcer dependence and independence in multiple and mixed schedules. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 20, 265–271, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lattal, K. A.: Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 22, 357–362, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lattal, K. A., and Bryan, A. J.: Effects of concurrent response-independent reinforcement on fixed-interval schedule performance. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 26, 495–504, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lowry, M. A., and Lachter, G. D.: Response elimination: a comparison of four procedures. Learning Motivation, 8, 69–76, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moffit, M., and Shimp, C. P.: Two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 16, 39–49, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neuringer, A. J.: Superstitious key pecking after three peck-produced reinforcements. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 13, 127–134, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nevin, J. A.: Rates and patterns of responding with concurrent fixed-interval and variable-interval reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 16, 241–247, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nevin, J. A.: The maintenance of behavior. In, J. A. Nevin and G. S. Reynolds (eds.): The Study of Behavior. Glenview, Ill., Scott, Foresman, 1973.Google Scholar
  57. Pavlov, I. P.: Conditioned Reflexes (Translated by G. V. Anrep). London, Oxford 1927 (reprinted, New York, Dover, 1960).Google Scholar
  58. Pliskoff, S. S., and Green, D.: Effects on concurrent performances of stimulus correlated with reinforcer availability. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 17, 221–227, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pliskoff, S. S., Shull, R. L., and Gollub, L. R.: The relation between response rates and reinforcement rates in a multiple schedule. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 11, 271–284, 1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Powers, R. B., and Osborne, J. G.: Fundamentals of Behavior. San Francisco, West, 1976.Google Scholar
  61. Premack, D.: Reinforcement theory. In, D. Levine (ed.): Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  62. Rachlin, H.: Contrast and matching. Psychol. Rev., 80, 217–234, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rachlin, H., and Baum, W. M.: Response rate as a function of amount of reinforcement for a signalled concurrent response. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 12, 11–16, 1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rachlin, H., and Baum, W. M.: Effects of alternate reinforcement: Does the source matter? J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 18, 231–241, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schneider, J. W.: Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: a comparison of concurrent performance s. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 20, 461–471, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schoenfeld, W. N., and Farmer, J.: Reinforcement schedules and the “behavior stream.” In, W. N. Schoenfeld (ed.): The Theory of Reinforcement Schedules. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.Google Scholar
  67. Schroeder, S. R.: Perseveration in concurrent performances by the developmentally retarded. Psychol. Record, 25, 51–64, 1975.Google Scholar
  68. Sherman, J. A., and Thomas, J. R.: Some factors controlling preference between fixed-ratio and variable-ratio schedules of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 11, 689–702, 1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shull, R. L., and Pliskoff, S. S.: Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 10, 517–527, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sidman, M.: Time discrimination and behavioral interaction in a free operant situation. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 49, 469–473, 1956.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sidman, M.: Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology. New York, Basic Books, 1960.Google Scholar
  72. Sidman, M.: Time out from avoidance as a reinforcer: a study of response interactions. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 5, 423–434, 1962.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Skinner, B. F.: The Behavior of Organisms. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938.Google Scholar
  74. Skinner, B. F.: Superstition in the pigeon. J. Exp. Psychol., 38, 168–172, 1948.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Skinner, B. F.: Are theories of learning necessary? Psychol. Rev., 57, 193–216, 1950.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Skinner, B. F.: Science and Human Behavior. New York, Macmillan, 1953.Google Scholar
  77. Skinner, B. F.: Contingencies of Reinforcement. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.Google Scholar
  78. Spence, K. W.: The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. Psychol. Rev., 44, 430–444, 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Staddon, J. E. R.: Learning as adaptation. In, W. K. Estes (ed.): Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes, vol. 2. Hillsdale, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.Google Scholar
  80. Staddon, J. E. R.: Schedule-induced behavior. In, W. K. Honig and J. E. R. Staddon (eds.): Handbook of Operant Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  81. Thomas, J. R.: Fixed-ratio punishment by timeout of concurrent variable-interval behavior. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 11, 609–616, 1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Todorov, J. C.: Concurrent performances: effect of punishment contingent on the switching response. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 16, 51–62, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Verhave, T.: Some observations concerning prepotency and probability of postponing shock with a two-lever avoidance procedure. J. Exp. Anal Behav., 4, 187–192, 1961.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zeiler, M. D.: Eliminating behavior with reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 16, 401–405, 1971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zeiler, M. D.: Positive reinforcement and the elimination of reinforced responses. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 26, 37–44, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zeiler, M. D.: Elimination of reinforced behavior: intermittent schedules of not-responding. J. Exp. Anal Behav. 27, 23–32, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zener, K.: The significance of behavior accompanying conditioned salivary secretion for theories of the conditioned response. Am. J. Psychol., 50, 384–403, 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iver H. Iversen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations