The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules.

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.

[1]  J. Malone Local contrast and Pavlovian induction. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  J. Farley Automaintenance, contrast, and contingencies: Effects of local vs. overall and prior vs. impending reinforcement context , 1980 .

[3]  B. Williams Contrast, component duration, and the following schedule of reinforcement. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[4]  S PLISKOFF,et al.  Rate-change effects during a pre-schedule-change stimulus. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  J. Hinson,et al.  Effects of component length and of the transitions among components in multiple schedules. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  B. Williams Behavioral contrast as a function of the temporal location of reinforcement. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[8]  R. Herrnstein On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  David R. Thomas,et al.  Effects of interdimensional training on stimulus generalization: II. Within-subjects design , 1967 .

[10]  A. Amsel Frustrative nonreward in partial reinforcement and discrimination learning: some recent history and a theoretical extension. , 1962, Psychological review.

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

[12]  A molecular analysis of multiple schedule interactions: negative contrast. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  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.

[14]  R D Spealman,et al.  Interactions in multiple schedules: the role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[17]  D L Myers,et al.  Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  R. Wilton,et al.  Behavioral contrast in one component of a multiple schedule as a function of the reinforcement conditions operating in the following component. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  J A Nevin,et al.  On the form of the relation between response rates in a multiple schedule. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[20]  W M Baum,et al.  On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[21]  M. Rilling,et al.  Comparison of time-out and extinction as determinants of behavioral contrast: An analysis of sequential effects , 1972 .

[22]  J. Malone Stimulus-specific contrast effects during operant discrimination learning. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[23]  B A Williams Elicited responding to signals for reinforcement: the effects of overall versus local changes in reinforcement probability. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  S. Pliskoff RATE-CHANGE EFFECTS WITH EQUAL POTENTIAL REINFORCEMENTS DURING THE "WARNING" STIMULUS. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  W. Baum,et al.  Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[26]  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.

[27]  T. Bloomfield Two types of behavioral contrast in discrimination learning. , 1966, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.