What is meant by the term “schedule-induced,” and how general is schedule induction?

Abstract

The term "schedule-induced" implies that the overall frequency of a behavior is greater in the presence of an intermittent schedule of reinforcement than in the absence of such a schedule Consequently, the occurrence of interreinforcement behavior is not in itself sufficient evidence of schedule induction: a test of induction requires comparison between an intermittent-schedule condition and a nonschedule baseline. The relative merits of different types of nonschedule baseline are examined, and it is concluded that the best test of schedule-induction involves both an extinction and a massed-reinforcer baseline. A working definition of schedule-induction is suggested on this basis. Studies purporting to show schedule induction of activities other than drinking are critically reviewed, and it is concluded that schedule induction may be less general than is usually supposed. It may therefore be more fruitful to seek an explanation of scheduleinduced drinking which focuses specifically on the interaction between food and water ingestion in the rat, rather than an explanation involving concepts such as stress, frustration, or arousal.

An Animal Model of Excessive Eating: Schedule‐induced Hyperphagia in Food‐satiated Rats

“…It should be noted that this perspective is directly contrary to Roper's (1981) view that discounts many of the schedule induction phenomena and interprets polydipsia as peculiar to the interaction between food and water ingestion by a hungry animal. In this experiment, eating occurs without water reinforcement by an animal that is not food deprived.…”

“…At present, there are a variety of definitions of and explanations for schedule-induced behaviors (Cantor et al, 1982;Falk, 1971Falk, , 1981Roper, 1981; Staddon, 1977;Wallace & Singer, 1976;Wilson & Cantor, 1986). It is imperative that proposed explanations be tested carefully before any single model is accepted uncritically.…”

Comportamento adjunto: controvérsias e contribuições teóricas

“…No entanto, certos casos que pareceram exceções para Falk (o agredir em pombos não foi pós-alimento quando o esquema utilizado foi um FR 60 e FR 120, bem como a polidipsia ocorreu ao longo do intervalo com esquema de intervalo longo acima de 3 minutos), para Wetherington (1982) (Falk, 1961) e que ainda hoje se mantém como a mais importante. No entanto, é a característica mais controvertida quando se discute a adequação da linha de base e das medidas utilizadas para se definir o que é comportamento excessivo (Cohen & Looney, 1984Haydu & Silva, 1997Roper, 1981;Timberlake, 1982;Wetherington & Brownstein, 1982;Wetherington, 1982 (Burks, 1970;Flory, 1971;Wetherington, 1979); duração de beber por pelota (Wetherington, 1979) e porcentagem de ocorrência de beber por pelota (Allen & Kenshalo, 1976;Segai, Oden & Deadwyler, 1965;Wetherington, 1979). Por outro lado, medidas de volume de água ingerida e número de respostas de lamber por unidade de tempo, e a medida de porcentagem de tempo dispendido com beber foram todas uma função decrescente da duração do intervalo (para revisão, ver Wetherington, 1979).…”

“…Na medida em que propõe maior generalidade do fenômeno, distancia-se das questões controvertidas que ainda existem sobre a generalização (Diosdado, 1984;Haydu, 1988;Roper, 1981)ecaracterização do comportamento adjunto como uma terceira classe de comportamento (Wetherington, 1982). (b) Staddon: Comportamento Induzido pelo Esquema.…”

Can surprising nonreward and adjunctive behavior influence each other?

“…Massed food has been used as a control in adjunctive behavior experiments (Roper, 1981). In this situation, all the food pellets are delivered at the beginning of the experimental session while the animals are kept in that situation for the same duration as those exposed to intermittent reinforcement.…”