Preference for Starting and Finishing Behavior Patterns

Abstract

Pigeon's key pecking was reinforced with food in two experiments in which the correspondence between preference for starting one of two reinforced behavior patterns and the likelihood of finishing it subsequently was examined. Reinforcers were scheduled according to concurrent schedules for two classes of interresponse times, modified such that reinforcers followed a center-key peck terminating either a shorter interresponse time started by a left-key peck or a longer interresponse time started by a right-key peck. In Experiment 1, the times when reinforcers potentially were available were not discriminated, whereas in Experiment 2 they were. Absolute reinforced pattern durations were varied. The relative frequency of starting a particular pattern was highly correlated with relative frequency of that completed pattern in both experiments. Other relations between starting and finishing a pattern depended on whether reinforced interresponse times were discriminated. For instance, preference for starting a pattern sometimes correlated negatively with the likelihood of subsequently completing it. The present experiments are described as capturing part of the ordinary language meaning of "intention," according to which an organism's behavior at one moment sets the occasion for an observer to say that the organism "intends" in the future to engage in one behavior rather than another.

Mathematical principles of reinforcement

“…Thus, the degree to which pigeons (Shimp 1982; and rats (Shimp 1984) seem to remember their recent behavior, or to know what they have just done, does not seem to account for the effects of reinforcement on their recent behavior. It would seem likely that there is a corresponding lack of correlation between what an animal "intends" to do and what it actually does (Shimp et al 1989). Quantitative models will apparently have to adjust for this complexity.…”

“…It is exciting that Killeen's approach offers the potential of unifying these research traditions that so often are seen as incompatible. His model can, at least in principle, be developed into a "behaving theory" that could generate the richly detailed behavior streams of real organisms (Shimp 1989) and thus unify the ethnographic and mechanistic approaches.…”

On multiscaled and unified

“…I suspect that Shimp is right when he cautions the reader that advocates of both the molecular and molar views might feel like Kennedy did during his presidential debate with Nixon. His Category 1 corresponds to his vision of molecular analyses, and reflects his empirical work on reinforcement contingencies and local patterns of behavior (e.g., Hawkes & Shimp, 1975;Shimp, 1966Shimp, , 1969Shimp, Sabulsky, & Childers, 1989) and his longstanding interest in structure (e.g., Shimp, 1975Shimp, , 1976. He cites shaping as the prototypical example of a molecular analysis and uses Skinner's ping-pong playing pigeons as an illustration.…”

Toward the unification of molecular and molar analyses

“…Automated shaping creates new unified temporal patterns just as does hand shaping in Category 1; but in Category 3 these patterns have precise, quantitative features that a computer controls. Automated shaping can specify (a) the starting behavior of a reinforced pattern and when the pattern should start, (b) the ending behavior and when the pattern should end, and (c) the behavior in between (e.g., Shimp, Sabulsky, & Childers, 1989). Skinner's contingencies that shaped the spacing between successive key pecks or lever presses, like differential reinforcement of lowrate (DRL) schedules, were very early examples of the shaping method of Category 3.…”