Abstract
Three experiments were performed to examine the effect of response force on rats’ performance on various schedules of reinforcement. Response force was manipulated by changing the weight of the lever in the operant chamber—a heavy lever for high response force and a light lever for low response force. Using a within-subjects design, Experiment 1 replicated previous findings that rats respond more quickly on variable ratio (VR) than on equivalent variable-interval-plus-linear-feedback (VI+) schedules. Experiment 2 replicated this finding but also showed that the use of a smaller response force abolished the response rate difference between the VR and VI+ schedules. Experiment 3 used a between-subjects design and showed a response rate difference between the VR and VI+ schedules with a high response force but no response rate difference with a low response force. This suggests that under conditions of low force, when the rats’ responding can continue at prolonged high rates, these subjects show little difference in their response rates between VR and VI+ schedules. These data are similar to those found for human subjects.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cole, M. R. (1999). Molar and molecular control in variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,71, 319–328.
Howell, D. C. (1997).Statistical methods for psychology. New York: Duxbury.
Kurtz, K. H. (1970). Food deprivation and effort expended for food.Learning & Motivation,1, 281–296.
Lowe, C. F. (1979). Determinants of human operant behavior. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.),Advances in analysis of behavior: Vol. 1. Reinforcement and the organisation of behavior (pp. 159–192). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
McDowell, J. J., &Wixted, J. T. (1986). Variable-ratio schedules as variable-interval schedules with linear feedback loops.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,46, 315–329.
Reed, P. (1989). The influence of interresponse time reinforcement on the signalled-reward effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,15, 224–231.
Reed, P. (1991). Multiple determinants of the effects of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,55, 109–123.
Reed, P. (1999). Effect of perceived cost on judgements regarding the efficacy of investment.Journal of Economic Psychology,20, 657–676.
Reed, P. (2003). The effect of signaled reinforcement on rats’ fixed-interval responding.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,79, 367–382.
Reed, P. (in press). Human sensitivity to reinforcement feedback functions.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
Reed, P., Hildebrandt, T., DeJongh, J., &Soh, M. (2003). Rats’ performance on variable-interval schedules with a linear feedback loop between response rate and reinforcement rate.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,79, 157–173.
Reed, P., Soh, M., Hildebrandt, T., DeJongh, J., &Shek, W. Y. (2000). The influence of feedback on molar and molecular contingencies: The variable-interval-plus-linear feedback-loop schedule.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,82, 246–255.
Sumpter, C. E., Temple, W., &Foster, T. M. (1998). Response form, force, and number: Effects on concurrent-schedule performance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,70, 45–68.
Wearden, J. H., &Clark, R. B. (1988). Interresponse-time reinforcement and behavior under aperiodic reinforcement schedules: A case study using computer modeling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,14, 200–211.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
These data were first presented at the Fourth European Meeting for the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, Amiens, France, 2000. Thanks are due the University of Leeds for providing laboratory space and Lisa A. Osborne for her support.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reed, P. Effect of required response force on rats’ performance on a VI+ schedule of reinforcement. Learning & Behavior 34, 379–386 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193203
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193203