Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change.

Timothy A Shahan, Kennon A Lattal
Author Information
  1. Timothy A Shahan: Department of Psychology, Utah State University, 2810 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322, USA. Tim.Shahan@usu.edu

Abstract

Two experiments with pigeons examined the effects of unsignaled, nonresetting delays of reinforcement on responding maintained by different reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, 3-s unsignaled delays were introduced into each component of a multiple variable-interval (VI) 15-s VI 90-s VI 540-s schedule. When considered as a proportion of the preceding immediate reinforcement baseline, responding was decreased similarly for the three multiple-schedule components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. In addition, the relation between response rates and reinforcement rates was altered such that both parameters of the single-response version of the matching law (i.e., k and Re) were decreased. Experiment 2 examined the effects of unsignaled delays ranging from 0.5 s to 8.0 s on responding maintained by a multiple VI 20-s VI 120-s schedule of reinforcement. Response rates in both components increased with brief unsignaled delays and decreased with longer delays. As in Experiment 1, response rates as a proportion of baseline were affected similarly for the two components in both the first six and last six sessions of exposure to the delay. Unlike delays imposed between two stimulus events, the effects of delays between responses and reinforcers do not appear to be attenuated when the average time between reinforcers is longer. In addition, the disruptions produced by unsignaled delays appear to be inconsistent with the general finding that responding maintained by higher rates of reinforcement is less resistant to change.

References

  1. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):301-16 [PMID: 1602269]
  2. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243-66 [PMID: 16811440]
  3. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):119-25 [PMID: 16811969]
  4. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 May;37(3):407-16 [PMID: 16812275]
  5. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529-30 [PMID: 13945507]
  6. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):317-37 [PMID: 16812656]
  7. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Jan;63(1):1-17 [PMID: 16812750]
  8. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Sep;58(2):277-86 [PMID: 1402602]
  9. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Sep;60(2):255-91 [PMID: 8409822]
  10. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Feb;23(1):73-90; discussion 90-130 [PMID: 11303339]
  11. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Mar;73(2):125-39 [PMID: 10784005]
  12. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):441-9 [PMID: 16811959]
  13. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):169-75 [PMID: 16812096]
  14. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1982 Oct;8(4):342-53 [PMID: 7175446]
  15. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Mar;69(2):103-22 [PMID: 9540229]
  16. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Mar;49(2):249-63 [PMID: 16812539]
  17. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Jan;69(1):59-75 [PMID: 9465413]
  18. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 May;69(3):247-61 [PMID: 16812876]
  19. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jan;15(1):27-38 [PMID: 16811486]
  20. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984;423:211-27 [PMID: 6588787]
  21. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3):Suppl:327-83 [PMID: 5672248]

MeSH Term

Animals
Columbidae
Conditioning, Operant
Male
Reaction Time
Reinforcement, Psychology
Time Factors

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0delaysreinforcementratesunsignaledVIrespondingsixeffectsmaintainedExperimentdecreasedcomponentsdelayexamined1multiplescheduleproportionbaselinesimilarlyfirstlastsessionsexposureadditionresponse0slongertworeinforcersappeartimechangeTwoexperimentspigeonsnonresettingdifferent3-sintroducedcomponentvariable-interval15-s90-s540-sconsideredprecedingimmediatethreemultiple-schedulerelationalteredparameterssingle-responseversionmatchinglawiekRe2ranging5820-s120-sResponseincreasedbriefaffectedUnlikeimposedstimuluseventsresponsesattenuatedaveragedisruptionsproducedinconsistentgeneralfindinghigherlessresistantUnsignaledrelativeresistance

Similar Articles

Cited By