Ontogeny has a phylogeny: background to adjunctive behaviors in pigeons and budgerigars

Abstract

Animals coping with operant conditioning tasks often show behaviors that are not recorded by keys, levers and similar response transducers. Nevertheless, these adjunctive behaviors should not be disposed of by classifying them as incidental. Often they are found to be at least partially influenced by the experimentally programmed contingencies, and under certain conditions they can in turn influence conditioned behaviors. Here we describe the occurrence and characteristics of two such behaviors, stimulus grasping in operantly key-pecking pigeons and intra-delay stereotypies in a delayed matching-to-sample task with budgerigars. It is argued that for a proper account of these behaviors it is necessary to refer to a behavioral systems approach that appeals to longer ranging ontogenetic and phylogenetic histories than is usually considered in the psychological literature. The gaping towards on-key stimuli by pigeons is attributed to the hypothesis that operantly conditioned key-pecks probably relate to a grasp-pecking response that is normally executed towards non-edible items covering food. The intra-delay behaviors shown by the budgerigars are assumed to have originated from stress-induced displacement responses that adventitiously came under the influence of differential reinforcement contingencies. Finally, we discuss what kinds of evidence are needed to put these hypothetical explanations on a more certain footing.

Effect of Schedule-Induced Behavior on Responses of Spontaneously Hypertensive and Wistar–Kyoto Rats in a Delay-Discounting Task: A Preliminary Report

“…This is in line with the view that schedule-induced behaviors are operants (Killeen and Pellón, 2013), but goes against the categorization of impulsivity in two types (cognitive and motor) because it does not seem to be a difference between them in the present study. Schedule-induced drinking could be part of the same behavioral pattern that determines the choice of subjects, as reported by other authors (Cleaveland et al, 2003; Machado and Keen, 2003; López-Tolsa and Pellón, in preparation). Similar findings have been observed in DRL schedules (Segal and Holloway, 1963) and the peak procedure (Mattel and Portugal, 2007), tasks that both involve self-control.…”

Adjunctive behaviors are operants

“…Timberlake noted the Lamarckian coevolution of experimental apparatus and research programs and subsequently constructed behavior systems theory as a framework for integrating organisms' niche-appropriate behaviors into the conceptual milieu of the experimentalist (Timberlake, 1994;Timberlake & Lucas, 1985, 1989. A similar approach was mooted by Cleaveland, Jäger, Rößner and Delius (2003). It is the motor programs discussed by these researchers, these action patterns, that we argue are entrained by reinforcement (Davis & Hubbard, 1972;Palya & Zacny, 1980).…”

Assessment of the ‘timing’ function of schedule-induced behavior on fixed-interval performance.

“…This type of results leads to the question of what we are really measuring when we talk about temporal learning and/or time estimation (see Sanabria et al, 2009, for a case in which motivational variables, rather than timing, may account for better results in temporal tasks). As Cleaveland et al (2003) pointed out, scientists in the field of the analysis of behavior are usually only concerned with measuring one specific behavior like a lever press or a key peck, without paying attention to the actual organism behaving. Lejeune et al (1998) stated that schedule-induced behaviors do not mediate timed responses and proposed a two-process account for timed behavior.…”

“…Behaviors interact and compete during interreinforcement intervals (Baum, 2012; Killeen, 1975; Pellón & Killeen, 2015; Segal et al, 1965), and their distributions depend on the reinforcement schedule (Roper, 1978; Rosellini & Burdette, 1980), the animal species used (Millenson et al, 1977), and the complexity and size of the environment in which the organisms are tested (Skuban & Richardson, 1975; Staddon & Ayres, 1975). Nevertheless, once a specific pattern of behaviors is developed, it tends to occur in a semi-invariant way (i.e., in the same order, for similar periods of time) during most of the interreinforcement intervals if all the environmental conditions remain constant (Baum & Grace, 2020; Cleaveland et al, 2003; Lawler & Cohen, 1992; Ruiz et al, 2016; Segal & Holloway, 1963; Staddon & Ayres, 1975; Staddon & Simmelhag, 1971).…”