Indexador

Rate of key pecking by pigeons subjected to response‐independent procedures in which a stimulus on the response key preceded food presentation was investigated in eight experiments. Color and shape of the stimulus, duration of the stimulus, probability of food following the stimulus, duration of the intertrial interval, and duration of food presentation were varied separately and in combination. All variables studied, except color and shape of the stimulus, had a reliable effect on pecking rate, but some variables had stronger effects than others. Rapid key pecking may be obtained with a variety of response‐independent procedures, as well as by response‐dependent reinforcement. The results of experiments in which food is both dependent on key pecking and correlated with stimulus conditions are not representative of simple operant effects. Key pecking is an ideal response for studying the simultaneous operation of response‐reinforcer and stimulus‐reinforcer effects.

Rats bar pressed for food on a reinforcement schedule in which every response was reinforced, even though a dish of pellets was present. Initially, auditory and visual stimuli accompanied response‐produced food presentation. With stimulus feedback as an added consequence of bar pressing, responding was maintained in the presence of free food; without stimulus feedback, responding decreased to a low level. Auditory feedback maintained slightly more responding than did visual feedback, and both together maintained more responding than did either separately. Almost no responding occurred when the only consequence of bar pressing was stimulus feedback. The data indicated conditioned and sensory reinforcement effects of response‐produced stimulus feedback.

Six pigeons were instrumentally trained to discriminate between two displays that differed only by the presence of a distinctive feature on the positive or food‐correlated display. In accordance with previous studies, subjects learned the discrimination and, in the presence of the positive display, directed most of their responses to the distinctive feature, although responses to the common feature were also reinforced. Subsequent generalization tests revealed that on the positive display, both common and distinctive features produced decremental gradients, contradicting Farthing's (1971) statement that the common feature acquires a control function opposite that of the distinctive feature. Procedural differences probably caused the discrepancy in results; within a display, Farthing presented common and distinctive features successively; the present study used simultaneous presentations of common and distinctive stimuli.

Responses in the first component of a chained schedule produced a change to the terminal component according to a fixed‐interval schedule. The number of responses emitted in the fixed interval determined whether a variable‐interval schedule of food presentation or extinction prevailed in the terminal component. In one condition, the variable‐interval schedule was in effect only if the number of responses during the fixed interval was less than that specified; in another condition, the number of responses had to exceed that specified. The number of responses emitted in the fixed interval did not shift markedly in the direction required for food presentation. Instead, responding often tended to change in the opposite direction. Such an effect indicated that differential food presentation did not modify the reference behavior in accord with the requirement, but it was consistent with other data on fixed‐interval schedule performance. Behavior in the terminal component, however, did reveal sensitivity to the relation between total responses emitted in the fixed interval and the availability of food. Response rate in the terminal component was a function of the proximity of the response number emitted in the fixed interval to that required for food presentation. Thus, response number served as a discriminative stimulus controlling subsequent performance.

In two experiments, pigeons' responding was equally reinforced in the presence of four line‐orientation stimuli. Responding was then reinforced when only two of the four orientation stimuli were present; the remaining two orientations appeared during extinction. Response rates were often highest in the stimulus adjacent to the orientations presented during extinction and often lowest in that orientation adjacent to the orientations presented with reinforcement. These effects were stronger and more persistent when the stimuli were separated by a smaller angle, rendering the discrimination more difficult. These and other data suggest that discrimination training may not be accurately explained in terms of the simple effects of reinforcement and nonreinforcement associated with isolated stimuli, nor by accounts that depend upon stimulus generalization. Recent accounts of contrast that depend upon “emotionality” produced by nonreinforced responding or upon reinforcement‐elicited responses are also difficult to apply to these data.

Two pairs of high‐school students matched‐to‐sample for money. On each trial, a subject could either respond on one lever to take the matching‐to‐sample problem himself (taking response) or respond on a second lever to give the problem to his coactor (giving response). The first subject to complete the response requirement determined the distribution of the problem. Competition maximizes the amount of responding over trials, i.e., both subjects make taking responses on each trial. Sharing and cooperation minimize responding: only one subject makes a taking response (sharing) or a giving response (cooperation) on each trial, and the subjects alternate responding such that there is an equitable distribution of responses and reinforcers over trials. Large increases in the fixed‐ratio response requirement to distribute problems produced: (1) a switch from competition to sharing or cooperation, (2) the expected concomitant change from inequitable to equitable distributions of reinforcers, and (3) a reduction in the amount of responding for three of the four subjects. Previous animal research has shown that large response requirements may have aversive properties. Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements allows a reduction in responding and, at the same time, a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.