Free‐operant Behavior Under Conditions of Delayed Reinforcement. I. Crf‐type Schedules

Dews, Peter

doi:10.1901/jeab.1960.3-221

Cited by 80 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained by Anderson (1932), Perin (1943), and Chung (1965), on the other hand, are based on relative measures. In the few studies that show large effects of delay and that use absolute measures, e.g., Skinner (1938, p. 139 ff) or Dews (1960), the animal's response postpones reinforcement. This is a direct contingency favoring a low rate of responding and not reinforcement delay in the usual sense of the term.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Chung

Herrnstein

1967

J Exper Analysis Behavior

499

367

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons were trained to peck either of two response keys for food reinforcement on equated aperiodic schedules. The distribution of responding at the two keys was studied as reinforcement was delayed for various durations. The relative frequency of responding at each key was shown to match the relative immediacy of reinforcement, immediacy defined as the reciprocal of the delay of reinforcement.The present experiment extends the investigation of reinforcement delay described by Chung (1965 auditory feedback to the pigeon. The chamber was illuminated by a white bulb, and, except when the magazine was operated, each response key was transilluminated by a 7-w red bulb. A continuous white masking noise was delivered during sessions. ProcedurePecks on either of the two response keys were, at first, reinforced on a variable-interval schedule with an average interval of 1 min. Two independent programmers arranged reinforcements for responses on the two response keys, with the restriction that a switch from one response key to the other prevented reinforcement for 1 sec (changeover delay or COD l-sec). When the rate of pecking on the two keys became stable and approximately equal, delays of reinforcement were initiated. For subjects 237, 236, 415, and 416, responses on the left key were reinforced after an 8-sec delay (standard key). Reinforcements for responses on the right key were delayed for various durations ranging from 1 to 30 sec (experimental key). The intervals of delay imposed on the experimental key, in-irregular order, were: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, and Between the response-to-be-reinforced and delivery of the reinforcement, the chamber 67 1967, 10,[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] NUMBER I (JANUARY)

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Chung

Herrnstein

1967

J Exper Analysis Behavior

499

367

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three procedures for delaying reinforcer delivery were compared at each of the delay durations: a retracted lever procedure in which the lever was absent during the delay (Tombaugh, 1966); a fixed-delay procedure in which responses during the delay had no scheduled effect on delay duration (Dews, 1960;Silver and Pierce, 1969); and a DRO procedure in which each response during the delay restarted the delay (Skinner, 1938;Dews, 1960;Azzi, Fix, Keller, and Rocha e Silva, 1964).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Pierce

Hanford

Zimmerman

1972

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Lattal and Gleeson (1990) and Wilkenfield, Nickel, Blakely, and Poling (1992) corrected for many of the procedural limitations in Skinner (1938) and demonstrated response acquisition in the absence of explicit shaping using resetting, nonresetting, and stacked delays. Dews (1960) demonstrated that nonresetting delays maintained higher rates of responding than resetting delays using pigeons and FR-1 schedules with delays of 10 s, 30 s, or 100 s. However, as Skinner noted, responses during the delay interval were likely in the nonresetting delay case, whereas those responses would have been punished under contingencies of resetting delays. Therefore, the differences in responding observed by Dews (1960) were confounded by two other potential differences: (a) differences in the obtained delay and (b) differences in the rate of reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Dews (1960) demonstrated that nonresetting delays maintained higher rates of responding than resetting delays using pigeons and FR-1 schedules with delays of 10 s, 30 s, or 100 s. However, as Skinner noted, responses during the delay interval were likely in the nonresetting delay case, whereas those responses would have been punished under contingencies of resetting delays. Therefore, the differences in responding observed by Dews (1960) were confounded by two other potential differences: (a) differences in the obtained delay and (b) differences in the rate of reinforcement. The second difference is a result of the positive feedback function of ratio schedules, including FR-1; higher rates of responding produce higher rates of reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Acquisition of discriminated operant responding: The effects of brief reinforcement delays

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a first series of experiments, 9 groups of rats were exposed to 30 20-minute sessions of successive visual discrimination training ("go/no-go," or mult FR-1 ext), where components (SD and S!» were equal (1 min) in length. Responses during SD were reinforced with a nonresetting delay (Experiment 1 a) or a resetting delay (ORO, Experiment 1 b) of 1 s, 2 s, 3 S, or 5 s (a "no delay" control group was also run). The terminal level and rate at which stimulus control developed was inversely related to the obtained delay, irrespective of cumulative reinforcers or reinforcement rate. A second series of experiments explored the role of reinforcer delivery as a discriminative stimulus, and the temporal regularity of the component changes. In Experiment 2a, 4 groups of rats were exposed to a mixed schedule where a delay factor (no delay and 5 s) was crossed with component type factor (fixed and variable lengths), yielding a 2 x 2 design. A 5th group was exposed to a 2-s delay with fixed components in Experiment 2b. Discriminative responding was not observed for any of the delay groups, and only a small effect of reinforcers was seen in the no-delay groups; no effect of component type was found. The results from these experiments demonstrate that delays to reinforcement retard the acquisition of a visual discrimination and may decrease the degree of stimulus control independent of the effects of delays on rate of responding, rate of reinforcement, and reinforcer delivery, per se. In addition, functions relating rate of responding in SD to rate of reinforcement were differentiated on the basiis of the type of delay contingency (non resetting vs . resetting) in contrast to an apparently undifferentiated function relating rate of responding to obtained delay.Discriminated operant responding appears to be a fundamental behavioral process important to a great number of species in a great number of contexts. Discriminated responding can develop or be trained in a number of ways. Arguably, the most straightforward procedure is We thank Ann E. Kelley for providing the resources to complete Experiments 2a and b. Requests for reprints should be sent to

show abstract

Free‐operant Behavior Under Conditions of Delayed Reinforcement. I. Crf‐type Schedules

Cited by 80 publications

References 3 publications

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

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

Acquisition of discriminated operant responding: The effects of brief reinforcement delays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Free‐operant Behavior Under Conditions of Delayed Reinforcement. I. Crf‐type Schedules

Cited by 80 publications

References 3 publications

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT1

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT1

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ON VARIABLE‐INTERVAL RESPONDING1,2

Acquisition of discriminated operant responding: The effects of brief reinforcement delays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

CHOICE AND DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

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