EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ON VARIABLE‐INTERVAL RESPONDING^1,2

Abstract

Two experiments studied responding in the rat when the first bar press after a variable period of time produced a cue light that remained on for either 10, 30, or 100 sec and terminated with the delivery of food. In Experiment I, response rate decreased and time to the first response after reinforcement increased as the delay of reinforcement increased. Similar results were obtained whether the delay consisted of retracting the lever during the delay, a fixed delay with no scheduled consequence for responding, or every response during the delay restarted the delay interval. In Experiment II, fixed-delay and fixedinterval schedules of the same duration during the delay period had no differential effect on either response rate or time to the first response after reinforcement, but differentially controlled responding during the delay periods.The typical finding in delay of reinforcement studies has been that response rate is a negatively accelerated decreasing function of the delay duration (cf., review by Renner, 1964). Exceptions to this finding suggest that the procedure for delaying delivery of the reinforcer can influence the effect of the delay duration on performance. Watson (1917), Ferster (1953), and Logan (1960, for example, found little or no effect on performance of a delay duration which, in other studies, was sufficient to markedly reduce responding. The lack of an effect has been attributed to procedural differences in delaying reinforcer delivery. Conversely, large decrements in responding have also been attributed to the 'Experiment I was based on a thesis submitted by the first author to the Department of Psychology, De Pauw University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.A.

Multiple determinants of “blocking” effects on operant behavior

“…Claire-Smith, 1979a, 1979b and with previous studies of conditioned reinforcement (e.g., Pierce et al, 1972, vs. Williams, 1976. With either a 0 delay or .5-sec delay, a "blocking" effect was demonstrated, since lower response rates were maintained when the reinforcer was associated with an exteroceptive signal.…”

“…If an unsignaled delay is imposed between a response and a contingent reinforcer, responding will decrease substantially (Williams, 1976). However, presentation of a stimulus during the delay interval will counteract the detrimental effects of the delay and will maintain responding at a rate comparable to that when reinforcement is presented immediately (Pierce, Hanford, & Zimmerman, 1972;Richards, 1972;Richards & Hittesdorf, 1978).…”

The interaction of deprivation and delay of reinforcement under a fixed-ratio schedule of responding

“…Although it is difficult to completely rule out this possibility, certain arguments can be made against it. For example, perusal of the cumulative records (see Figure 3) does indicate that some discrimination was occurring, and previous experiments (Meunier & Ryman, 1974;Pierce, Hanford, & Zimmerman, 1972) have indicated an invariance of results across different types of delay procedures. Finally, the differences in PRP for Rat 79 parallel those differences observed for the other animals, although he responded equally during the delay regardless of deprivation level.…”

The effects of changeover delays of fixed or variable duration on concurrent variable-interval performance in pigeons

“…Evidently, a COD can also function as a response-initiated discriminative stimulus controlling the characteristics of the behavior occurring in its presence. Pierce, Hanford, and Zimmerman (1972) have previously shown such control in simple delay of reinforcement studies with rats.…”