Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
-
Studies that have superimposed response-independent reinforcement (or reinforcers scheduled by contingencies placed on the absence of responding) upon conventional response-dependent schedules are reviewed. In general, providing alternative sources of reinforcement reduced response rates below the levels observed when alternative reinforcement was absent. ⋯ Superimposition of schedules providing reinforcers contingent on the absence of responding usually produced more severe response-rate decrements than superimposition of response-independent reinforcement. A variant of Herrnstein's equation, which assumes that some of the alternative reinforcers function as if they were delivered by baseline response-dependent source of reinforcement, is in qualitative agreement with the overall body of results obtained, and can predict both increases and decreases in response rate as resulting from superimposed reinforcers.
-
A procedure is described which disrupts response-reinforcer contiguity and response dependency and which demonstrates how the location of the response dependency in interval schedules can be regarded as a controlling variable in its own right. Rats' lever pressing produced sucrose on a recycling conjunctive fixed-time 30-second fixed-ratio 1 schedule of reinforcement. Reinforcement occurred only at the end of the fixed-time component on this schedule and only if a response had occurred during that component. ⋯ When the location of the response dependency was then restricted to a 10-second period in the middle of the fixed-time component, the pattern was accentuated and response rates increased for all animals, while postreinforcement pauses decreased sharply for two animals. When responding was required in the first 10 seconds of the fixed-time component, responding peaked earlier in the interval for all animals. Response rates were slightly below those in the previous conditions, while postreinforcement pauses were between 2 and 6 seconds across animals.
-
The effect of distractors on pigeons' delayed matching of key location was investigated. Baseline trials began with a "ready" stimulus (brief operation of the grain feeder). Then one (randomly chosen) key from a three-by-three matrix was lit briefly as the sample. ⋯ The three stimuli were: the sample (correct comparison) location for that trial, the incorrect comparison location for that trial, or one of the seven unused locations for that trial. Relative to blank trials, accuracy improved slightly on sample-interpolated trials, decreased slightly on unused location-interpolated trials, and decreased considerably on incorrect comparison-interpolated trials. In Experiment 3, retention intervals were blank or had one of six types of interpolation: the sample, the incorrect comparison, two presentations of the sample, two presentations of the incorrect comparison, the sample followed by the incorrect comparison, or the incorrect comparison followed by the sample.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
A multiple-response baseline of four activities was established using gerbils as subjects. When one of the baseline responses was punished (Experiment 1) or restricted (Experiments 2 and 3), only the most probable of the alternative baseline responses increased. The response most likely to follow the punished or restricted responses during baseline sessions was also suppressed during subsequent punishment or response-restriction treatment.
-
This paper is a selective review of the methods, problems, and findings in the area of operant stimulus generalization over the 25 years since the publication of the original paper by Guttman and Kalish (1956) on discriminability and spectral generalization in the pigeon. The paper falls into five main sections, which encompass the main themes and problems stemming from the Guttman and Kalish work and its immediate successors. The first section addresses the relationship between stimulus generalization and stimulus control, as well as the variety of testing procedures and dependent variables used to measure generalization. ⋯ The last section is devoted to attentional effects and the two principal theories postulated to account for them. A survey of different attentional paradigms is provided and the possible role of constant irrelevant stimuli as a source of control is examined. A brief conclusion summarizes the contribution of the generalization technique toward an understanding of the nature and acquisition of stimulus control.