Contingency Effects with Maintained Instrumental Reinforcement

In three experiments we investigated the effect on the performance of thirsty rats of varying the instrumental contingency between lever pressing and the delivery of a saccharin reinforcer. In Experiment 1, the subjects performed more slowly in a non-contingent condition, in which the momentary probability of reinforcement was unaffected by whether or not the animals pressed, than in a contingent condition in which the reinforcer was never presented except following a lever press. This was true of performance under both random ratio and interval schedules in which the function determining the probability of reinforcement following a lever press remained the same across the contingent and non-contingent conditions. Experiment 2 demonstrated that instrumental performance was less affected when the contingency was degraded by the introduction of free reinforcers if these reinforcers were signalled. In Experiment 3, lever pressing was reinstated to some degree after non-contingent training by giving non-reinforced exposure to the operant chamber in the absence of the lever. These results suggest that free reinforcers depress instrumental behaviour through a performance mechanism engaged by their ability to support conditioning of the contextual cues.

[1]  R. Rescorla Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. , 1968, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[2]  R. Rescorla,et al.  Effect of response-independent reinforcers during extinction. , 1969 .

[3]  A. R. Wagner,et al.  Situational cues and correlation between CS and US as determinants of the conditioned emotional response , 1970 .

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

[5]  V. Peek,et al.  INDEPENDENTLY DELIVERED FOOD DECELERATES FIXED‐RATIO RATES1 , 1970 .

[6]  R. Rescorla Informational Variables in Pavlovian Conditioning , 1972 .

[7]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[8]  H. Rachlin,et al.  Effects of alternative reinforcement: does the source matter? , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  K. Lattal Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Transient effects of reward presentation and omisision on subsequent operant responding. , 1975 .

[11]  F. J. Odling-Smee The Role of Background Stimuli during Pavlovian Conditioning , 1975, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  Marvin Z. Deluty Excitatory and inhibitory effects of free reinforcers , 1976 .

[13]  F. J. Odling-Smee The overshadowing of background stimuli by an informative CS in aversive Pavlovian conditioning with rats , 1978 .

[14]  J. Staddon Operant behavior as adaptation to constraint. , 1979 .

[15]  Michael S. Fanselow,et al.  Signaled shock-free periods and preference for signaled shock. , 1980 .

[16]  H. Terrace,et al.  Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory , 1980 .

[17]  L. J. Hammond The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  Contingency in fear conditioning: A reexamination , 1981 .

[19]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  Responses eliminated by noncontingent or negatively contingent reinforcement recover in extinction. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[20]  J. Kagel,et al.  Maximization theory in behavioral psychology , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  L. J. Hammond,et al.  Probabilistic contingency theories of animal conditioning: A critical analysis , 1983 .

[22]  Christopher D. Adams,et al.  The Effect of the Instrumental Training Contingency on Susceptibility to Reinforcer Devaluation , 1983 .

[23]  P. Durlach Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[24]  A. Tomie,et al.  Correlations between rats' spatial location and intracranial stimulation administration affects rate of acquisition and asymptotic level of time allocation preference in the open field , 1983 .

[25]  R. Rescorla Signaling intertrial shocks attenuates their negative effect on conditioned suppression , 1984 .

[26]  A. Tomie,et al.  The effects of response-reinforcer contingency on time allocation in the open field , 1984 .