Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers between multiple-schedule components

Behavioral ephemera, difficult discriminations, and behavioral stability

Every species possesses abilities for successfully interacting with its environment. These result from phylogeny. In the laboratory, one may arrange artificial conditions that thwart an organism's abilities. The result may be a "phenomenon." With sufficient training, however, the phenomenon may prove to be ephemeral, as the organism's basic abilities reassert themselves. Pigeons respond extremely well to differences and nondifferences in rate of obtaining food. This ability may be thwarted in a variety of ways, but the results tend to be ephemeral. An example is an experiment that pitted pigeons' preference for unimpeded responding against their ability to respond to food rate. In a concurrent-chains procedure, the terminal links were identical variable-interval schedules, but in one terminal link, every response produced a timeout. The duration of the timeout varied, and preference varied with it, but the relation vanished with training, in keeping with the equality of food rate across the 2 terminal links. Some other examples of "phenomena" that tend to disappear with sufficient training and sufficient variation in experimental parameters are behavioral contrast, conditioned reinforcement, resistance to extinction, and suboptimal choice. These "phenomena" depend on pigeons' failing to make difficult discriminations. They appear to be behavioral ephemera.

Response strength in extreme multiple schedules

Four pigeons were trained in a series of two-component multiple schedules. Reinforcers were scheduled with random-interval schedules. The ratio of arranged reinforcer rates in the two components was varied over 4 log units, a much wider range than previously studied. When performance appeared stable, prefeeding tests were conducted to assess resistance to change. Contrary to the generalized matching law, logarithms of response ratios in the two components were not a linear function of log reinforcer ratios, implying a failure of parameter invariance. Over a 2 log unit range, the function appeared linear and indicated undermatching, but in conditions with more extreme reinforcer ratios, approximate matching was observed. A model suggested by McLean (1991), originally for local contrast, predicts these changes in sensitivity to reinforcer ratios somewhat better than models by Herrnstein (1970) and by Williams and Wixted (1986). Prefeeding tests of resistance to change were conducted at each reinforcer ratio, and relative resistance to change was also a nonlinear function of log reinforcer ratios, again contrary to conclusions from previous work. Instead, the function suggests that resistance to change in a component may be determined partly by the rate of reinforcement and partly by the ratio of reinforcers to responses.

Behavioral contrast in a two-option analogue task of financial decision making

The effects of an alternative course of action on sustained escalation and persistence in the face of failure was investigated using a computerized stock investment task. Subjects invested in "stock" in two "markets" that yielded returns according to two-component multiple variable-interval schedules. Both markets yielded equal but intermittent return rates during the first phase. In the second phase, one market ceased to yield returns, while the return rate for the other market was unchanged. During the second phase, behavioral contrast effects were evident. Investing in the market that ceased to yield returns dropped precipitously, and investing in the unchanged market increased significantly. Although the behavior may be economically "irrational," it is predictable from the matching law and shows that interactions among a history of intermittent returns in a course of action, current return rate, and currently available alternative courses of action are important determinants of persisting in, or withdrawing from, a failing course of action.

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded on multiple schedules arranged on a "main" key in a two-key experimental chamber. A constant schedule component was alternated with another component that was varied over conditions. On an extra response key, conjoint schedules of reinforcement that operated in both components were arranged concurrently with the multiple schedule on the main key. On the main key, changes in reinforcement rate in the varied component were inversely related to changes in response rates in the constant component (behavioral contrast). On the extra key, some reinforcers were reallocated between components, depending on the schedules in effect on the main key in the varied component. In the varied component, the obtained rates of reinforcement on the extra key were inversely related to main-key reinforcement rate. In the constant component, extra-key reinforcer rates were positively related to main-key reinforcer rates obtained in the varied component, and were not a function of response rates on the extra key. In two comparisons, the rate at which components alternated and the value of the main-key schedule in the constant component were varied. Consistent with earlier work, long components reduced the extent of contrast. Reductions in contrast as a function of component duration were accompanied by similar reductions in the extent of reinforcer reallocation on the extra key. In the second comparison, lowering the rate of reinforcement in the constant component increased the rate at which extra-key reinforcers were obtained, reduced the extent of reinforcer reallocation, and reduced contrast. Overall, the results are consistent with the suggestion that some contrast effects are due to the changes in extraneous reinforcement during the constant component, and that manipulations of component duration, and manipulations of the rate of reinforcement in the constant component, affect contrast because they influence the extent of extraneous reinforcer real-location.

Varying reinforcer duration produces behavioral interactions during multiple schedules

The experiments tested the idea that changes in habituation to the reinforcer contribute to behavioral interactions during multiple schedules. This idea predicts that changing an aspect of the reinforcer should disrupt habituation and produce an interaction. Pigeons and rats responded on multiple variable interval variable interval schedules. Introducing variability into the duration of reinforcers in one component increased response rates in both components when the schedules provided high, but not low, rates of reinforcement. The increases in constant-component response rates grew larger as the session progressed. Within-session decreases in responding were smaller when the other component provided variable-, rather than fixed-, duration reinforcers. These results are consistent with the idea that changes in habituation to the reinforcer contribute to behavioral interactions. They help to explain why interactions do not occur for some subjects under conditions that produce them for others. Finally, the results question the assumption that induction and behavioral contrast are always produced by different theoretical mechanisms.

The relation of multiple-schedule behavioral contrast to deprivation, time in session, and within-session changes in responding

Pigeons' keypecking was reinforced by food on baseline schedules of multiple variable interval (VI) x VI x and on contrast schedules of multiple VI x VI y. Deprivation of food was varied by maintaining subjects at 75%, 85%, and 95% (+/- 2%) of their free-feeding weights. Positive and negative behavioral contrast were observed. The size of the contrast was not systematically altered by changes in deprivation. Positive and negative contrast were both larger later in the session than they were earlier. Within-session decreases in responding were steeper for the baseline than for the contrast schedules for positive contrast. Within-session decreases were steeper for the contrast than for the baseline schedules for negative contrast. These results were predicted by the idea that different amounts of habituation to the reinforcer during the baseline and contrast schedules contribute to behavioral contrast. The results show that contrast occurs under conditions that reduce the effect of the following component. The results support the assumption that positive and negative contrast are produced by symmetrical theoretical variables.

Dishabituation with component transitions may contribute to the interactions observed during multiple schedules

Rates of responding by rats were usually higher during the variable interval (VI) 30-s component of a multiple VI 30-s fixed interval (FI) 30-s schedule than during the same component of a multiple VI 30-s VI 30-s schedule (Experiment 1). Response rates were also usually higher during the FI 30-s component of a multiple VI 30-s FI 30-s schedule than during the same component of a multiple FI 30-s FI 30-s schedule (Experiment 2). The differences in response rates were not observed when the components provided VI or FI 120-s schedules. These results were predicted by the idea that differences in habituation to the reinforcer between multiple schedules contribute to behavioral interactions, such as behavioral contrast. However, differences in habituation were not apparent in the within-session patterns of responding. Finding differences in response rates in both experiments violates widely-held assumptions about behavioral interactions, including that behavioral contrast does not occur for rats and that improving the conditions of reinforcement decreases, rather than increases, response rate in the alternative component.

Mechanisms underlying the effects of unsignaled delayed reinforcement on key pecking of pigeons under variable-interval schedules

Three experiments were conducted to test an interpretation of the response-rate-reducing effects of unsignaled nonresetting delays to reinforcement in pigeons. According to this interpretation, rates of key pecking decrease under these conditions because key pecks alternate with hopper-observing behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 pigeons pecked a food key that raised the hopper provided that pecks on a different variable-interval-schedule key met the requirements of a variable-interval 60-s schedule. The stimuli associated with the availability of the hopper (i.e., houselight and keylight off, food key illuminated, feedback following food-key pecks) were gradually removed across phases while the dependent relation between hopper availability and variable-interval-schedule key pecks was maintained. Rates of pecking the variable-interval-schedule key decreased to low levels and rates of food-key pecks increased when variable-interval-schedule key pecks did not produce hopper-correlated stimuli. In Experiment 2, pigeons initially pecked a single key under a variable-interval 60-s schedule. Then the dependent relation between hopper presentation and key pecks was eliminated by arranging a variable-time 60-s schedule. When rates of pecking had decreased to low levels, conditions were changed so that pecks during the final 5 s of each interval changed the keylight color from green to amber. When pecking produced these hopper-correlated stimuli, pecking occurred at high rates, despite the absence of a peck-food dependency. When peck-produced changes in keylight color were uncorrelated with food, rates of pecking fell to low levels. In Experiment 3, details (obtained delays, interresponse-time distributions, eating times) of the transition from high to low response rates produced by the introduction of a 3-s unsignaled delay were tracked from session to session in 3 pigeons that had been initially trained to peck under a conventional variable-interval 60-s schedule. Decreases in response rates soon after the transition to delayed reinforcement were accompanied by decreases in eating times and alterations in interresponse-time distributions. As response rates decreased and became stable, eating times increased and their variability decreased. These findings support an interpretation of the effects of delayed reinforcement that emphasizes the importance of hopper-observing behavior.

Shortcomings of the behavioral competition theory of contrast: Reanalysis of McLean (1992)

McLean (1992) presented significant data showing that the occurrence of behavioral contrast in a multiple schedule was correlated with shifts in the frequency of reinforcers from a second source between components of the schedule, and interpreted his results as showing that contrast was due to changes in the degree of response competition within the constant component of the multiple schedule. Reanalysis of his data shows that there was an effect of reinforcement in the alternative component of the schedule independent of the shifts in reinforcers between components. Thus, the effect of relative rate of reinforcement cannot be ascribed, at least entirely, to the mechanisms proposed by the behavioral competition theory of contrast.