Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of Reinforcement Context on Initial Link Responding in Concurrent Chain Reinforcement Schedules

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research shows that relative initial- and terminal-link temporal duration influences concurrent chain choice proportions. However, little research has examined whether reinforcement outside of either links influences concurrent chain choice proportions and/or response rates. We examined this by conducting an experiment in which 11 pigeons responded on concurrent chain schedules that alternated with either fixed interval (FI) or fixed time (FT) reinforcement schedules. FI and FT schedules provided reinforcement every 20, 60 or 180 s. Concurrent chain schedules provided reinforcement on average every 60 s. Concurrent chain schedules were never available at the same time as the FI or FT schedule. Most pigeons decreased choice proportions as the temporal duration of the FI or FT schedules increased, similar to the initial-link effect. Consistent with behavior contrast research, initial link response rates significantly increased as reinforcement rate decreased during the FI and FT schedules. This is the first study to show that reinforcement outside of a concurrent chain schedule can significantly change choice proportions. The initial link response rate result suggests a novel way to look at initial link response rates, outside of changing reinforcement rates and temporal duration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Including pigeons 17 and EA1752 in the analysis resulted in the following results: For initial link choice proportions a repeated measures ANOVA showed no significant main effects for context schedule duration F(3, 30) = 2.49, p = 0.08 or response contingency F(1, 10) = 0.28, p = 0.61, but a significant interaction between context schedule duration and response contingency F(3, 30) = 3.50, p = 0.04, η2 = 0.26. For initial link, terminal link, and context schedule response rates, a repeated measure ANOVA showed identical results as when the two pigeons were excluded.

References

  • Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fantino, E., & Davison, M. (1983). Choice: Some quantitative relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 1–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fantino, E., Preston, R. A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay-reduction: Current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159–169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fleshler, M., & Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 529–530.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goldshmidt, J. N., Lattal, K. M., & Fantino, E. (1998). Context effects on choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 301–320.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113–129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grace, R. C., & Bragason, O. (2004). Does the terminal-link effect depend on duration or reinforcement rate? Behavioural Processes, 67, 67–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. S., & Boakes, R. A. (1971). Behavioral contrast and response independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 429–434.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hursh, S. R., & Fantino, E. (1973). Relative delay of reinforcement and choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 437–450.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • LaFiette, M. H., & Fantino, E. (1989). Responding on concurrent-chains schedules in open and closed economies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 329–342.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • MacEwen, D. (1972). The effects of terminal-link fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules on responding under concurrent chained schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 253–261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychological Review, 108(1), 96–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, J. E., & Fantino, E. (2014). Choice. In F. K. McSweeney & E. S. Murphy (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning (pp. 195–220). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, G. S. (1961). Behavioral contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 57–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shull, R. L., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: Some effects on relative performance measures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 517–527.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Squires, N., & Fantino, E. (1971). A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 27–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. M., & Corr, P. B. (1974). Behavioral parameters of drug action: Signaled and response-independent reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 151–158.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, R. G., & Ramsden, M. (1973). Discrimination of a response-independent component in a multiple schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 55–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. A. (2002). Behavioral contrast redux. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. A., & Fantino, E. (1978). Effects on choice of reinforcement delay and conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 77–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, W. A., & Fantino, E. (1996). Response-dependent prochoice effects on foraging related choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 619–641.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Romanowich.

Ethics declarations

Funding

None

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

Chico State’s Animal Care and Use Committee (ACUC) approved all procedures prior to experimentation. Pigeons were cared for according to the standards described in California State University, Chico’s Animal Welfare Policy. All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for care and use of animals were followed.

Informed Consent

No human participants were enrolled.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romanowich, P., Cozine, A. & Worthen, D.L. Effects of Reinforcement Context on Initial Link Responding in Concurrent Chain Reinforcement Schedules. Psychol Rec 67, 43–50 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0204-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-016-0204-1

Keywords

Navigation