The Effects of Lag Value on the Operant Control of Response Variability Under Free-Operant and Discrete-Response Procedures

Morris, Charles J.

doi:10.1007/bf03395067

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present findings show that contingent reinforcement can engender and maintain response variability, and they agree with previous findings reported in the literature (Machado, 1989;Morris, 1987Morris, , 1989Page & Neuringer, 1985;Van Hest et al, 1989). The Last 5 Sessions Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…First, when pigeons, rats, and human subjects are given reinforcers for emitting variable behavior, variability increases (Blough, 1966;Machado, 1989;Morris, 1987;Neuringer, 1986;Page & Neuringer, 1985;Pryor, Haag, & O'Reilly, 1969;Schoenfeld, Harris, & Farmer, 1966;Van Hest, Van Haaren, & Van De Poll, 1989). Second, the more variability required to obtain a reinforcer, the more is typically obtained (Machado, 1989;Morris, 1989;Page & Neuringer, 1985). Third, response variability can be placed under stimulus control (Neuringer, 1991;Page & Neuringer, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As explained below, the dependent variables used in previous variability studies (e.g., Machado, 1989;Morris, 1987Morris, , 1989Page & Neuringer, 1985) were not appropriate for Experiments 2 and 3. Therefore, the first experiment used a variability schedule with new measures of response variation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Behavioral Variability and Frequency‐dependent Selection

Machado¹

1992

J Exper Analysis Behavior

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, two conditions were compared: (a) a variability schedule in which food reinforcement was delivered for the fourth peck in a sequence that differed from the preceding N four-peck sequences, with the value of N continuously adjusted to maintain reinforcement probability approximately constant; and (b) a control condition in which the variability constraint was dropped but reinforcement probability remained constant. Pigeons responded approximately randomly under the variability schedule but showed strong stereotyped behavior under the control condition. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the idea that variability is the outcome of a type of frequency-dependent selection, namely differential reinforcement of infrequent behavior patterns. The results showed that pigeons alternate when frequency-dependent selection is applied to single pecks because alternation is an easy-to-learn stable pattern that satisfies the frequency-dependent condition. Nevertheless, 2 of 4 pigeons showed random behavior when frequency-dependent selection was applied to two pecks, even though double alternation is a permissible and stable stereotype under these conditions. It appears that random behavior results when pigeons are unable to acquire the stable stereotyped behavior under a given frequency-dependent schedule.Key words: behavioral variability, frequency-dependent selection, Bernoulli process, Markov chain, lag analysis, response pattern, key peck, pigeon Three lines of evidence show that response variability can be modulated by reinforcement contingencies. First, when pigeons, rats, and human subjects are given reinforcers for emitting variable behavior, variability increases (Blough, 1966;Machado, 1989;Morris, 1987;Neuringer, 1986;Page & Neuringer, 1985;Pryor, Haag, & O'Reilly, 1969;Schoenfeld, Harris, & Farmer, 1966;Van Hest, Van Haaren, & Van De Poll, 1989). Second, the more variability required to obtain a reinforcer, the more is typically obtained (Machado, 1989;Morris, 1989;Page & Neuringer, 1985). Third, response variability can be placed under stimulus control (Neuringer, 1991;Page & Neuringer, 1985). These three data sets I thank John Staddon and the other L.A.B. group members for their continuous help and encouragement. The research was partially supported by grants to Duke University from NSF and NIMH (John Staddon, Principal Investigator). Experiment 1 was carried out while the author was at the Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal (my appreciation to the students who helped run the experiment). Parts of the paper were presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Nashville, May 1990. Derivations of the functions represented in Figure 6 are available from the author upon request. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Armando Machado, Department of Psychology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27706. suggest that variability is another operant dimension of behavior, with the same theoretical status as response force, duration, and latency. The present study was de...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Behavioral Variability and Frequency‐dependent Selection

Machado¹

1992

J Exper Analysis Behavior

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, when Page and Neuringer (1985) rewarded pigeons for generating sequences of eight left or right pecks that differed from the sequences generated on the last 50 trials, they obtained highly variable, random-like behavior. That is, the birds not only pecked each key equally often, but also showed few or no sequential dependencies between consecutive responses (see also Hest, Haaren, & Van De Poll, 1989;Morgan & Neuringer, 1990;Machado, 1989Machado, , 1992Morris, 1987Morris, , 1989Neuringer, 1991Neuringer, , 1992. However, frequencydependent selection may also engender stereotypical behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Polymorphic response patterns under frequency-dependent selection

Machado

1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a discrete-trials procedure, a frequency-dependent schedule shaped left-right choice proportion toward various equilibrium values between 0 and 1. At issue was (1) whether pigeons match when the overall reinforcement probabilities for two responses depend inversely on their recent frequency, and (2)how pigeons meet the schedule constraint in terms of local responding. That is, do they respond quasi-randomly (Bernoulli mode), or do they learn the stable pattern of the schedule (stable-pattern mode)? Molar choice behavior always tracked the equilibrium solution ofthe schedule, but the molecular response patterns varied substantially. Markov chains applied to the data revealed that responding was generally intermediate between the memoryless Bernoulli mode, and the perfect memory stable-pattern mode. The polymorphism of molecular patterns, despite molar regularities in behavior, suggests that (1) in order to engender the Bernoulli or stable-pattern modes, the reinforcement rule must strongly discourage competing response patterns (e.g., perseveration), and (2) under frequency-dependent schedules, molar matching is apparently not the outcome of momentary maximizing.Laboratory studies have shownthat frequency-dependent selection, the differential reinforcement of infrequent responses, sometimes engenders high degrees of behavioral variability. For example, when Page and Neuringer (1985) rewarded pigeons for generating sequences of eight left or right pecks that differed from the sequences generated on the last 50 trials, they obtained highly variable, random-like behavior. That is, the birds not only pecked each key equally often, but also showed few or no sequential dependencies between consecutive responses (see also Hest, Haaren, & Van De Poll, 1989;Morgan & Neuringer, 1990;Machado, 1989Machado, , 1992Morris, 1987Morris, , 1989Neuringer, 1991Neuringer, , 1992. However, frequencydependent selection may also engender stereotypical behavior. In a previous study (Machado, 1992), a frequencydependent schedule differentially reinforced the momentarily least likely of two responses-the more a pigeon preferred the right key, the less food it received from that key and the more food it received from the left key. Similar contingencies operated when preference shifted to the left; the probability of food for left (L) and right (R) pecks was equal only at indifference. Although the pigeons pecked each key on 50% of the trials, they did so by alternating rather than responding randomly.The preceding results illustrate two points. First, pigeons can track the overall probabilities of reinforcement for each of two responses when these probabilities I thank John Staddon and the other L.A.B. group members for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. The research was supported by grants to Duke University from NSF and NIMH (John Staddon, principal investigator). Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to A. Machado,

show abstract

“…Visto que a intermitência do reforçamento pode ser uma variável indutora de variabilidade, em paralelo à seleção operante, esses procedimentos podem, também, induzir variação. Em outras palavras, há a possibilidade de interação entre os dois tipos de variabilidade, a operante e a induzida (Neuringer & Jensen, 2012 Mook et al, 1993), o número de respostas que compõem uma sequência (Page & Neuringer, 1985, Experimento IV), a topografia da resposta de variar (Morgan & Neuringer, 1990), o intervalo temporal entre resposta e reforço (Odum, Ward, Barnes, & Burke, 2006;Wagner & Neuringer, 2006), a magnitude do reforço (Doughty, Giorno, & Miller, 2013), a probabilidade de reforçamento (Grunow & Neuringer, 2002), o intervalo entre respostas (Neuringer, 1991), a oportunidade para emissão da resposta (e.g., operante livre versus tentativa discreta; Morris, 1987Morris, , 1989Morris, , 1990, o efeito de substâncias químicas (Cohen, Neuringer, & Rhodes, 1990;McElroy & Neuringer, 1990;Mook & Neuringer, 1994), a história de reforçamento (Hunziker, Caramori, Silva, & Barba, 1998;Souza et al, 2010;Yamada, 2012;Yamada & Hunziker, 2009) e de incontrolabilidade anterior ao treino de variabilidade (Hunziker, Yamada, Manfré, & Azevedo, 2006) e, no caso da pesquisa com humanos, o tipo de instrução fornecida (Hunziker, Lee, Ferreira, Silva, & Caramori, 2002;Souza et al, 2012;Strapasson, 2013). Ademais, alguns estudos têm demonstrado controle discriminativo da variabilidade (Denney & Neuringer, 1998;Page e Neuringer, 1985, Experimento VI;Ward, Kynaston, Bailey, & Odum, 2008) e generalização entre contextos .…”

Section: Variabilidade Comportamentalunclassified

Variabilidade comportamental reforçada negativamente sob contingência de esquiva

Júnior¹,

Rodrigues²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Effects of Lag Value on the Operant Control of Response Variability Under Free-Operant and Discrete-Response Procedures

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

Behavioral Variability and Frequency‐dependent Selection

Behavioral Variability and Frequency‐dependent Selection

Polymorphic response patterns under frequency-dependent selection

Variabilidade comportamental reforçada negativamente sob contingência de esquiva

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About