Interactions in multiple schedules: the role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency.

In Experiments I and II, pigeons were exposed to single-key multiple schedules of response-independent and -dependent food presentation. Components were correlated with different keylights. When the rate of food presentation in the first component exceeded that in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively high at onset of the first component. Overall rate in that component varied inversely with component duration and the rate of food presentation in the second component. When responding was maintained in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively low at onset of that component. Overall rate in the second component varied directly with component duration and the rate of food presentation in that component. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to a two-key multiple schedule. Pecks on a constantly illuminated key produced food. Components were correlated with the color of a second key on which pecks had no scheduled consequences. The effects of component duration and rate of food presentation under the single-key response-dependent schedule were synthesized by combining response rates on each concurrently available key under the two-key procedure. The results support an account of multiple-schedule interactions in terms of the joint influence on responding of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer contingencies.

[1]  B A Williams,et al.  A re-examination of local contrast in multiple schedules. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  B. Hamilton,et al.  Behavioral contrast in the pigeon: a study of the duration of key pecking maintained on multiple schedules of reinforcement. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  L R Gollub,et al.  Behavioral interactions in multiple variable-interval schedules. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  Barry Schwartz Discriminative stimulus location as a determinant of positive and negative behavioral contrast in the pigeon. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  B. Schwartz,et al.  The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus-contingent and response-independent food presentation. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  E. Wasserman The effect of redundant contextual stimuli on autoshaping the pigeon’s keypeck , 1973 .

[7]  G S REYNOLDS,et al.  Some limitations on behavioral contrast and induction during successive discrimination. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  R. J. Irwin,et al.  Multiple schedules: effects of the distribution of reinforcements between component on the distribution of responses between conponents. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  A. Catania,et al.  Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Pavlovian appetitive contingencies and approach versus withdrawal to conditioned stimuli in pigeons. , 1974, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[11]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  H. Rachlin Contrast and Matching. , 1973 .

[13]  J C Todorov,et al.  Component duration and relative response rates in multiple schedules. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  J. Staddon,et al.  Contrast effects in maintained generalization gradients. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  K L Wheatley,et al.  Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  Howard Rachlin,et al.  Economic and biological influences on a pigeon's key peck. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  P Killeen,et al.  A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Pavlovian Control Of Operant Behavior: An Analysis Of Autoshaping And Its Implications For Operant Conditioning , 1977 .

[19]  K. Keller The role of elicited responding in behavioral contrast. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[20]  R L Menlove,et al.  Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[21]  P. L. Brown,et al.  Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[22]  C. C. Perkins,et al.  The role of autopecking in behavioral contrast. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[23]  F B Arnett,et al.  A local-rate-of-response and interresponse-time analysis of behavioral contrast. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  J A Nevin,et al.  An analysis of contrast effects in multiple schedules. , 1966, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  A. Catania,et al.  Self-inhibiting effects of reinforcement. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.