Behavioral control by the response–reinforcer correlation

Abstract

Using a discrete-trials procedure, two experiments examined the effects of response-reinforcer correlations on responding while controlling molecular variables that operated at the moment of reinforcer delivery (e.g., response-reinforcer temporal contiguity, interresponse times preceding reinforcement). Each trial consisted of three successive components: Response, Timeout, and Reinforcement, with the duration of each component held constant. The correlation between the number of responses in the Response component and reinforcer deliveries in the Reinforcement component was varied. In the Positive-correlation condition, a larger number of responses in the Response component programmed a higher reinforcement rate (Experiment 1) or a shorter time to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component. Although programmed in this way, the actual reinforcer delivery was dependent on, and occurred immediately after, a response in the Reinforcement component. In the Zero-correlation condition, the programmed rates of reinforcement (Experiment 1) or the times to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component of each trial were yoked to those in the preceding Positive-correlation condition. Responding in the Response component was higher in the Positive- than in the Zero-correlation condition, without systematic changes in molecular variables. The results suggest that the response-reinforcer correlation can be a controlling variable of behavior.

Matching theory and induction explain operant performance

“…Baum () showed that pigeons readily distinguish positive from negative temporally extended contingencies. Kuroda and Lattal () found that pigeons distinguish extended contingency from noncontingency even when local contingencies are equated.…”

Response–reinforcer contiguity versus response‐rate–reinforcer‐rate covariance in rats' lever pressing: Support for a multiscale view

“…The molecular view entails two propositions: (a) behavior consists of discrete responses (an ontological commitment); and (b) reinforcers strengthen responses that they follow closely in time (a theoretical commitment). The theoretical commitment that response–reinforcer contiguity alone increases behavior has been challenged multiple times since the 1960s by research indicating that contiguity is neither necessary nor sufficient (Baum, ; Kuroda & Lattal, ; Rescorla, , , ). The ontological commitment to discrete responses also has been challenged since the 1960s by research and argument indicating that behavior is better understood as consisting of temporally extended activities or patterns of behavior (Baum, , ; Baum & Rachlin, ).…”

Big Surprises: Jackpot Reinforcers in Research and Practice

“…With a little imagination, these examples could be construed as broadly response dependent. It could be suggested, for example, that there may have been a molar contingency between responding and the "highly valued reinforcer" (see Kuroda & Lattal, 2018, for an example of the effects of such molar contingencies on responding) when it is delivered at the end of that particularly productive training session. It also could be that the jackpot functions like an accumulation contingency (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2014), whereby the participant earns reinforcers but postpones receipt until the end of the session.…”