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

Cage Assure Hunt Stein Dura 

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