Matching, induction, and covariance with mixed response‐contingent food and noncontingent food

Abstract

The multiscale molar view of behavior is based on three basic laws of behavior: the Law of Allocation, the Law of Induction, and the Law of Covariance. Experiments that mix response-contingent food with noncontingent food shed light on these three laws. Food, like other phylogenetically important events, induces various activities that compete in allocation. Quantitative accounts represent induction with power functions. These power functions define activities' competitive weights, and relative time allocation among activities matches relative competitive weight. Behavior-food covariance determines which activities are induced. Phylogenetic (behavior-fitness) covariance determines which adjunctive activities are induced. Ontogenetic covariance may be represented in feedback functions. Feedback functions for variable-interval schedules may be observed even when overlaid by noncontingent food deliveries. Equations derived from the three laws describe responding in experiments with mixed responsecontingent and noncontingent food. Equations derived here accounted for responding in three data sets: (a) from Rachlin and Baum (1972); (b) a new data set in which overall food rate was fixed while the proportion of response-contingent and noncontingent food varied; and (c) a new data set in which food occurred according to various variable-interval schedules. The same pigeons served throughout. All results were accommodated by the derived equations.

Bridging the Gap Between Laboratory and Applied Research on Response-Independent Schedules

“…This view is also broadly consistent with the numerous studies that have demonstrated that operant reinforcers appear to have effects that are similar to the effect of discriminative stimuli (Ingvarsson & Kahng, 2006), as well as the literature on autoshaping mentioned above (Brown & Jenkins, 1968;Williams & Williams, 1969). For the present purposes, recent basic research with pigeons and rats suggests that the concept of PIEs as inducers might provide an alternative account of some of the research findings on the effects of response-independent schedules that seem inconsistent with the traditional view of operant reinforcement (Baum 2021;Baum & Aparicio, 2020;Baum & Grace, 2020).…”

Covariance, feedback, and discounting in ratio schedules

“…6 and 8 and Table 3). In experiments with mixed contingent and noncontingent food, the more noncontingent food, the lower the response rate (Baum, 2021;Baum & Aparicio, 2020;Rachlin & Baum, 1972). The reduction in operant responding may be explained by competition with nonoperant activity induced by the noncontingent food.…”

“…The Law of Induction proved essential to explaining performance on VI schedules (Baum, 2015;Baum & Grace, 2020) and avoidance (Baum 2020). The Law of Covariance was tested by mixing noncontingent food with contingent food and proved to be essential for explaining the resulting reductions in response rate (Baum, 2021;Baum & Aparicio, 2020;Rachlin & Baum, 1972). In those earlier studies, however, the noncontingent food played the role of an alternative source of food competing with the operant activity, whereas in the present experiment covariance itself was manipulated by varying the temporal lag between the operant pecking and the resulting food.…”

“…The feedback relation for a VI schedule is equally precise, but is curvilinear (Baum, 1992(Baum, , 2012Baum & Grace, 2020). These feedback relations are less precise-looser-in the short term, because food rate varies around the feedback line, but are more precisely defined-tighter-in the long term (Baum, 2021).…”

“…As a result, presenting food to a hungry organism in a laboratory setting induces food-related activities like pecking in a pigeon or chewing in a rat (Staddon, 1977). Considerable evidence indicates that the rate of food induces nonoperant activities according to power functions, as in Equation 2 (Baum, 2020(Baum, , 2021Baum & Aparicio, 2020;Baum & Davison, 2014;Baum & Grace, 2020). These nonoperant activities compete with operant activity, which is also induced according to power functions, as in Equation 2.…”