Schedule interactions in second-order fixed-interval (fixed-ratio) schedules of token reinforcement

Generalized conditioned reinforcement with pigeons in a token economy

“…While extending the use of token systems to new domains, the present study also connects to prior work on extended sequence schedules, including but not limited to token reinforcement schedules. As a type of extended chained schedule, token reinforcement schedules produce temporally organized patterns of behavior, with response rates increasing across token‐production segments leading to the terminal reinforcer (Bullock & Hackenberg, ; Foster et al, ; Waddell, Leander, Webbe, & Malagodi, ; Webbe & Malagodi, ). The differential latencies shown in Figure are consistent with this general finding: Latencies at the outset of token‐production components were consistently longer than those at the outset of exchange‐production components.…”

SECOND‐ORDER SCHEDULES OF TOKEN REINFORCEMENT: COMPARISONS OF PERFORMANCE UNDER FIXED‐RATIO AND VARIABLE‐RATIO EXCHANGE SCHEDULES1

“…Just as the interactions that arise from the scheduling of concurrent operants may reveal basic properties of behavior that are masked in unelaborated situations, so also may the effects of schedule variables be manifested differently when reinforcers depend on completion of functional response units rather than single responses. Encouraging for the analysis (and for the analysts), is the fact that most experiments with second-order schedules utilizing the approach represented here, have reported generality of schedule processes and unitary effects of schedule variables, rather than uncovering disparities (Kelleher, 1966;Shull, Guilkey, and Witty, 1972;Waddell et al, 1972).…”

“…Operationally, the delivery of tokens may be likened to brief presentations of exteroceptive stimuli, as in second-order brief-stimulus schedules, or, alternatively, the accumulation of tokens may be likened to successive changes in discriminative stimuli as in second-order chained schedules. Direct experimental comparisons of these three forms of second-order schedules have not been reported, but performance under token schedules most often resembles brief-stimulus rather than chained schedule performance (Malagodi et al, 1975b;Waddell, Leander, Webbe, and Malagodi, 1972).…”

“…Operationally, the delivery of tokens may be likened to brief presentations of exteroceptive stimuli, as in second-order brief-stimulus schedules, or, alternatively, the accumulation of tokens may be likened to successive changes in discriminative stimuli as in second-order chained schedules. Direct experimental comparisons of these three forms of second-order schedules have not been reported, but performance under token schedules most often resembles brief-stimulus rather than chained schedule performance (Malagodi et al, 1975b;Waddell, Leander, Webbe, and Malagodi, 1972).Because the completion of component schedules may be conditionable with respect to second-order schedule dependencies, second-order schedules have become important procedures for examining the generality of the effects of variables that contribute to the rates and patterns characteristic of schedule-controlled behavior in general (e.g., Davison, 1969;Marr, 1971; see Gollub, 1977 for review). The use of second-order schedules within such an analytical context provides a means for extending the generality of schedule processes and the unitary effects of schedule variables from simple to complex behavioral situations (cf.…”

“…Morse, 1966). For example, under simple fixedratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI) schedules, the positive, direct relationship between postreinforcer pause duration and schedule parameter value (Felton and Lyon, 1966;Schneider, 1969) is replicated under second-order FR and Fl schedules (Malagodi; 1967b, c;Waddell et al, 1972). Under simple fixed schedules at parameter values that generate marked postreinforcer pauses, changing the schedule dependency from fixed to variable (at the same average parameter value) significantly reduces or even abolishes this pausing (Ferster and Skinner, 1957).…”