Abstract
In two experiments, we assessed whether rats optimize the number of reinforcers per response. In Experiment 1, one group of rats was trained to leverpress for food reinforcement on a simple variable-interval (VI) 60-sec schedule. For another group, a negative fixed-ratio component was imposed on the VI schedule to produce a conjoint contingency in which reinforcement became available on the VI schedule but was omitted when the ratio criterion was satisfied. In Experiment 2, one group of rats responded on a VI schedule and also received response-independent food. For another group, responding above a certain rate canceled the response-independent food. Despite the negative contingency experienced by the groups in Experiments 1 and 2, responding was maintained at a level at which the number of obtained reinforcers was reduced substantially below the maximum number possible. In addition, in both experiments, the groups that experienced the negative contingency responded at a lower rate than did a yoked control group that experienced the same frequency of reinforcement but lacked the negative component. These results demonstrate that although rats do not optimize their behavior with respect to reinforcement, they are nevertheless sensitive to some aspect of the instrumental contingency in operation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allison, J. (1981). Economics and operant conditioning. In P. Harzern & M. Zeiler (Eds.),Advances in analysis of behavior: Vol. 2. Predictability, correlation, and contiguity (pp. 321–353). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlational-based law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,20, 137–153.
Baum, W. M. (1981). Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,36, 387–403.
Burgess, I. S., &Weardon, J. H. (1986). Superimposition of response-independent reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,45, 75–83.
Burkhard, B. (1982). Preference and response substitutability in the maximization of behavioral value. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & H. Rachlin (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 2. Matching and maximizing accounts (pp. 375–394). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging: The marginal value theorem.Theoretical Population Biology,9, 129–136.
Collier, G., Hirsch, E., &Kanarek, R. (1977). The operant revisited. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.),Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dickinson, A., &Charnock, D. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37B, 397–416.
Ettinger, R. H., Reid, A. K., &Staddon, J. E. R. (1987). Sensitivity to molar feedback functions: A test of molar optimally theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,13, 366–375.
Hammond, L. J. (1980). The effect of contingency upon appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,34, 297–304.
Herrnstein, R. J., &Vaughan, W. (1980). Melioration and behavioral allocation. In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.),Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior (pp. 143–176). New York: Academic Press.
Houston, A. J., & McNamara, J. M. (in press). A framework for the functional analysis of behavior.Brain & Behavioral Sciences.
Hursh, S. R. (1984). Behavioral economics.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,42, 435–452.
Krebs, J. R., Kacelnik, A., &Taylor, P. (1978). Optimal sampling by foraging birds: An experiment with great tits (Parus major).Nature,275, 27–31.
Krebs, J. R., &McCleery, R. H. (1984). Optimization in behavioral ecology. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.),Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 91–121). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Lea, S. E. G. (1978). Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon: Optimal and nonoptimal aspects of choice.Animal Behavior,27, 875–886.
Lea, S. E. G. (1981). Correlation and contiguity in foraging theory. In P. Harzern & M. Zeiler (Eds.),Advances in analysis of behavior: Vol. 3. Predictability, correlation, and contiguity (pp. 355–406). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Lea, S. E. G., &Dow, S. M. (1987). The integration of reinforcements over time [Special issue: Timing and time perception]Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,423, 269–277.
Mazur, J. E. (1981). Optimization theory fails to predict performance of pigeons in a two-response situation.Science,214, 823–825.
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.
Peele, D. B., Casey, J., &Silberberg, A. (1984). Primacy of inter-response time reinforcement in accounting for rates under variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,10, 149–167.
Rachlin, H. (1978) A molar theory of reinforcement schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,30, 345–360.
Rachlin, H., Battalio, R. C., Kagel, J. H., &Green, L. (1981). Maximization theory in behavioral psychology.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,4, 371–417 (includes commentary).
Rachun, H., &Baum, W. M. (1972). Effects of alternative reinforcement. Does the source matter?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,18, 231–241.
Rachun, H., &Burkhard, B. (1978). The temporal triangle: Response substitution in instrumental conditioning.Psychological Review,85, 22–48.
Rachlin, H., Green, L., Kagel, J. H., &Battalio, R. C. (1976). Economic demand theory and psychological studies of choice.Psychology of Learning & Motivation,10, 129–154.
Reed, P., & Schachtman, T. R. (1989).Negative contingency schedules: A problem for optimization theory? Manuscript submitted for publication
Staddon, J. E. R. (1979). Operant behavior as an adaptation to constraint.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 48–67.
Staddon, J. E. R. (1983).Adaptive behavior and learning. Cambridge, MA Cambridge University Press.
Staddon, J. E. R., &Hinson, J. M. (1983). Optimization: A result or a mechanism?Science,221, 976–977.
Thomas, G. V. (1981). Contiguity, reinforcement rate, and the law of effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33B, 33–43.
Thomas, G. V. (1983). Contiguity and contingency in instrumental conditioning.Learning & Motivation,14, 513–526.
Tierny, K. J., Smith, H. V., &Gannon, K. N. (1987). Some tests of molar models of instrumental performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,13, 341–353.
Timberlake, W. (1980). A molar equilibrium theory of learned performancePsychology of Learning & Motivation,14, 1–58.
Timberlake, W. (1984). Behavior regulation and learned performance: Some misapprehensions and disagreements.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,41, 355–375.
Timberlake, W., &Aluson, J. (1974). Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance.Psychological Review,81, 146–164
Vaughan, W. (1982). Choice and the Rescorla-Wagner model. In M. L. Commons, R. J. Herrnstein, & H. Rachlin (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 2. Matching and maximizing accounts (pp. 263–279). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Vaughan, W., &Miller, H. L. (1984). Optimization versus response strength accounts of behavior.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,42, 337–348.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by a studentship from the United Kingdom Science and Engineering Research Council at the University of York. The order of authorship was determined by random chance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reed, P., Schachtman, T.R. Instrumental responding by rats on free-operant schedules with components that schedule response-dependent reinforcer omission: Implications for optimization theories. Animal Learning & Behavior 17, 328–338 (1989). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209806
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209806