Competitive conditioned reinforcement during differential reinforcement of low rates

Abstract

AbstraetThree pigeons were exposed to an FR-10 conditioned reinforcement probe superimposed over baselines generated by DRL schedules. Response rates increased when the probes were introduced. ProblemFindley & Brady (1965) have reported facilitative effects of response contingent magazine lightpresentations during large fixed ratio contingencies. In that study response rates were substantially increased by adding a concurrent FR-400 schedule of magazine light delivery to an FR-4000 food schedule.The present study is the first in a series of attempts to demonstrate this effect when the high rates produced by the conditioned reinforcement contingency do not increase reinforcement density, without using programmed extinction as a baseline (Kelleher, 1961). SubjectsThe Ss were three adult silver king pigeons which were maintained at 80% of their ad. lib. body weight. They had extensive histories, Le., several hundred hours, of both DRL-20 sec. and DRL-30 sec. schedules of food reinforcement. ApparatusA standard one cubic foot experimental chamber was used . Illumination of the entire chamber was provided by a 7-w lamp located opposite the response panel near the ceiling. The translucent plastic response key, 8-3/4 in from the floor on the midline of the response panel, was illuminated by a green 7-w lamp. The aperture to the grain magazine was centered 2 in from the floor immediately under the key. Programming was accomplished with standard relay equipment. ProcedureThe Ss were exposed to a DRL-20 sec. schedule of food reinforcement until their intrasession rates of responding were relatively consistent, and the intersession variability was small. The DRL schedule specifies a minimum interresponse time, or pause length, and in this experiment each response was reinforced whose latency was equal to or exceeded the specified value. Reinforcement was a 4.5 sec. access to grain.A probe (conc. DRL-20 sec. FR-10) was introduced within several sessions. The DRL contingency was unchanged by the probe, and every tenth response produced a 2 sec. blackout of the box during which the magazine light was illuminated. These stimulus conditions were identical to those which occurred at food reinforcement on the DRL schedule except the grain Psychon. Sci. , 1965, Vol. 3 JOHN J. RANDOLPH AND WILLIAM R. SEWELL UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMAhopper was not elevated.Two of the three birds were re-exposed to a DRL-30 sec. schedule in the latter portion of the experiment. The probe, now conc. DRL-30 sec. FR-10, was reintroduced when the intra session variability was small enough for an adequate eValuation of the effects of the fixed ratio contingency. Results and DiscussionIncreases in response rates during the probes of the 20 sec. baseline were found for all three birds, but in two of the three cases the changes were small and transitory. The most dramatic change is shown in the first probe in Fig. 1. The segment marked with the letter A shows a food reinforcement delivered while the probe was in effect.The amount of rate change during the probes...

Competitive conditioned reinforcement and efficient differential reinforcement of low rate performance

“…But, when efficiency and frequency of reinforcement are low, the competitive schedule will cause a sharp rise in response rate, with responding seemingly under the control of the conditioned reinforcement schedule. The present findings parallel the results of Randolph & Sewell (1965). The amount of rate change produced by the conditioned reinforcement probe is inversely related to the bird's efficiency of DRL performance.…”

“…However, the effects of the competitive conditioned reinforcement schedule appear to interact with the degree of control exerted by the DRL schedule (Randolph & Sewell, 1965). In pigeons, the degree of change in rate resulting from the fixed ratio for conditioned reinforcement schedule was inversely related to the efficiency of DRL performance.…”

“…When every tenth response produces a brief presentation of a conditioned reinforcer, response rates increase and responding appears to come under the control of the conditioned reinforcement contingency (Randolph & Sewell, 1965).…”

CONTROL OF PREFERENCE IN CHILDREN BY CONDITIONED POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT1

“…of the paired stimulus alone (without food), -the rate of mismatching increased. By demonstrating control of a conditional discrimination by conditioned reinforcement, the Clark and Sherman study extended previous studies that controlled simple responses by, conditioned reinforcement in concurrent schedules (e.g., Zimmerman, 1963;Randolph and Sewell, 1965;Zimmerman and Hanford, 1966), and secondorder schedules (e.g., Findley and Brady, 1965;Kelleher, 1966;Thomas and Stubbs, 1966). Stubbs and GallowayS (1970) reported similar findings: under some schedules of reinforcement of correct responses, the rate and accuracy of.…”

EFFECTS OF A CONDITIONED REINFORCER UPON ACCURACY OF MATCH‐TO‐SAMPLE BEHAVIOR IN PIGEONS1

“…Findley and Brady (1965), Thomas and Stubbs (1966), Kelleher (1966), and de Lorge (1967) have reported control over rates and patterns of response in second-order schedules. Zimmerman (1963), Zimmerman and Hanford (1966), Randolph and Sewell (1965), and Zimmerman, Hanford, and Brown (1967) have shown the maintenance of behavior by brief stimuli paired with food in procedures with concurrent schedules.…”