Dynamic changes in the size of behavioral contrast.

Abstract

McSweeney and Weatherly (1998) suggested that multiple-schedule behavioral contrast may be explained, at least partly, by differences in the amount of habituation to the reinforcer produced during the baseline and contrast phases of a contrast experiment. The present experiment studied behavioral contrast when pigeons pecked keys for food reinforcers delivered on multiple VI VI schedules. The results confirmed two predictions made by McSweeney and Weatherly. Both positive and negative contrast were larger for longer (i.e. 80 min) than for shorter sessions (i.e. 20 min). Positive and negative contrast were also larger later, rather than earlier, in the session. These results support the conclusion that factors that weaken the effectiveness of the reinforcer with its repeated delivery (e.g., habituation) may be among the factors contributing to multiple-schedule behavioral contrast.

Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: Satiation and habituation have different implications for theory and practice

“…We argue that habituation contributes to these changes, not that it is the sole contributor. Swindell, & Weatherly, 1999), the behavioral interactions observed during multiple schedules (McSweeney, Kowal, Murphy, & Isava, in press;McSweeney, Murphy, & Kowal, 2003, 2004bMcSweeney, Swindell, Murphy, & Kowal, 2004;Swindell, McSweeney, & Murphy, 2003), some results that are usually attributed to behavioral economics (McSweeney & Swindell, 1999a;, and the bitonic relation between rate of responding and rate of reinforcement (e.g., McSweeney, 1992 Reducing the effectiveness ofa problematic reinforcer. Many behavioral problems occur because a reinforcer is too strong and maintains too much be-havior (e.g., obesity, smoking, drug consumption).…”