Abstract
Response rates, reinforcement rates, and efficiency ratios resulting from two modified DRL procedures and a constant DRL treatment control group were compared to assess the relative efficiency and durability of response reduction of each procedure. Following Fixed-Ratio pretraining, six undergraduate student volunteers were randomly assigned to each of three DRL procedures (Groups): (a) Constant DRL, (b) Adjusting DRL, or (c) Adjusting omission training (OT)-DRL. Following the response reduction condition, subjects underwent a return to baseline durability testing condition. The Adjusting OT-DRL procedure effected the most efficient and durable response reduction, the highest reinforcement rates, and the highest efficiency ratios. The Adjusting OT-DRL and Adjusting DRL procedures both proved to be significantly more efficient and durable than the Constant DRL procedure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Notes
HEMMES, N. S. 1970. DRL efficiency depends upon the operant. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Antonio.
BUEL, C. L., & BOSTWICK, A. D. 1976. Effects of a collateral alternative response in response elimination by adjusting and constant omission training schedules with humans. Paper presented at the Second Annual M.A.B.A. Convention, Chicago, May.
References
BRUNER, A., & REVUSKY, S. H. 1961. Collateral behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 349–350.
BUEL, C. L. 1975. Investigation of the temporal parameters in omission training with humans in a two-key situation. The Psychological Record, 25, 99–109.
CARTER, D. E., & MACGRADY, G. J. 1966. Acquisition of a temporal discrimination by human subjects. Psychonomic Science, 5, 309–310.
DEITZ, S. M., & REPP, A. C. 1974. Differentially reinforcing low rates of misbehavior with normal elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 622.
DEWS, P. B., & MORSE, W. H. 1958. Some observations of an operant in human subjects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 359–364.
GRANT, D. A. 1964. Classical and operant conditioning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.), Categories of human learning. New York: Academic Press.
KAPOSTINS, E. E. 1963. The effect of DRL schedules on some characteristics of word utterances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 115–122.
KRAMER, T. J., & RILLING, M. 1969. Effects of timeout on spaced responding in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 283–288.
MYERS, J. L. 1972. Fundamentals of experimental design. Rockleigh, N. J.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
REYNOLDS, G. S. 1964. Temporally spaced responding in pigeons: Development and effects of deprivation and extinction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 415–421.
TOPPING, J. S., LARMI, O. K., & JOHNSON, D. L. 1972. Omission training: Effects of gradual introduction. Psychonomic Science, 28(5), 279–280.
TOPPING, J. S., PICKERING, J. W., & JACKSON, J. A. 1971. Efficiency of DRL responding as a function of response effort. Psychonomic Science, 24(3), 149–150.
UHL, C. N. 1974. Response elimination in rats with schedules of omission training, including yoked and response-independent reinforcement comparisons. Learning and Motivation, 5, 511–531.
UHL, C. N., & GARCIA, E. E. 1969. Comparison of omission with extinction in response elimination in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 69(3), 554–562.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bostwick, A.D. Comparison of the Efficiency and Durability of Responding Effected by Two Modified DRL Procedures with Humans. Psychol Rec 27, 225–233 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394442
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394442