Induction by Reinforcer Schedules

Abstract

Traditional strategies for determining whether a reinforcer schedule enhances the occurrence of an activity are reviewed and critically evaluated. A basic assumption underlying these strategies is that it is possible to isolate the effect of reinforcer intermittency on schedule induction. It is concluded that this is not, in fact, possible. An alternative approach is proposed that emphasizes the inductive effects of the reinforcer schedule as a unit and the effects of particular aspects of the reinforcer schedule (e.g., interreinforcer interval, repetition of the reinforcer, reinforcer magnitude).

Differences in food consumption under intermittent and continuous reinforcement schedules of water delivery: Some implications for schedule-induced behavior

“…However, given the well-established finding that food consumption decreases in water-deprived rats and the finding in the present experiment that ingestion rate was directly related to water rate, it seems reasonable to suppose that had a no-water condition been run, very little food would have been consumed. If that were the case, then, according to Cohen and Looney's (1984) criterion, the present data, interestingly, would indicate that both the FT schedules and the CRF schedules generated schedule-induced eating.…”

“…The present data have implications for the recent controversy over the definition of SIP and schedule-induced behavior in general (Cohen & Looney, 1984;Roper, 1981;Timberlake, 1982;Wetherington & Brownstein, 1982). Roper (1981) has argued that drinking, for example, should be called schedule-induced only if its occurrence is greater under an intermittent schedule than (1) under a CRF or massed food control (i.e., presentation en masse of the amount of food delivered under the intermittent schedule) and (2) in the absence of food.…”

“…According to these criteria, the FT water presentations clearly did not induce feeding, since more food was consumed in the CRF conditions. Cohen and Looney (1984) recently argued against using the CRF or en masse controls as means by which to assess schedule induction and argued instead that only a no-food condition was necessary. In the present research, food intake during sessions containing no water was not examined.…”

“…This strategy would allow us to view apparent excessiveness simply as instances of certain values of fundamental functional relationships (see Catania, 1979). It would obviate notions of schedule induction (Cohen & Looney, 1984;Roper, 1981;Timberlake, 1982;Wetherington & Brownstein, 1982) and, instead, focus attention on seeking explanations of behavioral regularities rather than classifying them.…”

Comportamento adjunto: controvérsias e contribuições teóricas

“…No entanto, certos casos que pareceram exceções para Falk (o agredir em pombos não foi pós-alimento quando o esquema utilizado foi um FR 60 e FR 120, bem como a polidipsia ocorreu ao longo do intervalo com esquema de intervalo longo acima de 3 minutos), para Wetherington (1982) (Falk, 1961) e que ainda hoje se mantém como a mais importante. No entanto, é a característica mais controvertida quando se discute a adequação da linha de base e das medidas utilizadas para se definir o que é comportamento excessivo (Cohen & Looney, 1984Haydu & Silva, 1997Roper, 1981;Timberlake, 1982;Wetherington & Brownstein, 1982;Wetherington, 1982 (Burks, 1970;Flory, 1971;Wetherington, 1979); duração de beber por pelota (Wetherington, 1979) e porcentagem de ocorrência de beber por pelota (Allen & Kenshalo, 1976;Segai, Oden & Deadwyler, 1965;Wetherington, 1979). Por outro lado, medidas de volume de água ingerida e número de respostas de lamber por unidade de tempo, e a medida de porcentagem de tempo dispendido com beber foram todas uma função decrescente da duração do intervalo (para revisão, ver Wetherington, 1979).…”