Animal Learning & Behavior

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 221–235

The free food (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: A review and analysis

  • Steve R. Osborne
Article

Abstract

Animals will perform an operant response to obtain food when abundant free food is available. These data have implications for current learning theories, especially in terms of the motivational variables associated with such behavior. The present paper reviews the literature and provides an analysis that suggests that responding for food in the presence of free food is importantly controlled by stimulus change attendant upon response-dependent food presentation. This apparent stimulus-reinforcer effect on behavior is compared to that observed in other areas of animal learning research that include preference between schedules of response-dependent and response-independent reinforcement, preference between schedules of signaled and unsignaled reinforcement, autoshaping and automaintenance, and self-reinforcement in animals.

Reference Note

  1. 1.
    Knopp, J., & Bourland, G.Rats barpress for food in the presence of free food under a variety of free food conditions. Paper presented at Western Psychological Association. April 1972.Google Scholar

References

  1. Alferink, L. A., Crossman, E. K., &Cheney, C. D. Control of responding by a conditioned rein forcer in the presence of free food.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1973,1, 38–40.Google Scholar
  2. Appel, J. B. Aversive aspects of a schedule of positive reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1963,6, 423–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atnip, G., &Hothersall, D. The preference of albino rats for free or response-produced food.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973,2, 153–154.Google Scholar
  4. Baenninger, R., &Mattleman, R. A. Visual reinforcement: Operant acquisition in the presence of a free mirror.Animal Learnings Behavior, 1973,1, 302–306.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes, G. W., &Baron, A. Stimulus complexity and sensory reinforcement.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1961,54, 466–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett, S. A. The rat: A study in behavior. Chicago: Aldine, 1963.Google Scholar
  7. Bilbrey, J. L., Patterson, D. D., &Winokur, S. Maintenance and autoshaping of keypecking in undeprived pigeons.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973,2, 394–396.Google Scholar
  8. Bindra, D. A motivational view of learning, performance, and behavior modification.Psychological Review, 1974,81, 199–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanchard, R., Honig, W. K. Surprise value of food determines its effectiveness as a reinforcer.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolles, R. C. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning.Psychological Review, 1972,79, 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, P. L., &Jenkins, H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon’s key peck.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968,11, 1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cantor, M. B. Signalled reinforcing brain stimulation facilitates operant behavior under schedules of intermittent reinforcement.Science, 1971,174, 610–612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantor, M. B., &LoLordo, V. M. Rats prefer signalled reinforcing brain stimulation to unsignalled ESB.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970,71, 183–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantor, M. B., &LoLordo, V. M. Reward value of brain stimulation is inversely related to uncertainty about its onset.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1972,79, 259–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carder, B. Rats’ preference for earned in comparison with free liquid reinforcers.Psychonomic Science, 1972,26, 25–26.Google Scholar
  16. Carder, B., &Beckman, G. C. Limitations of “container neophobia” as an explanation of rats’ responding for food in the presence of free food.Behavioral Biology, 1975,14, 109–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carder, B., &Berkowitz, K. Rats preference for earned in comparison with free food.Science, 1970,167, 1273–1274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlson, C. N., &Riccio, D. C. Experience with the reinforcer and the preference for earned rather than free reinforcers in rats.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1976,4, 269–272.Google Scholar
  19. Coburn, J. F., &Tarte, R. D. The effects of rearing environments on the contrafreeloading phenomenon in rats.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1976,26, 289–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cohen-Salmon, C., &Blancheteau, M. Transport et consommation de la norriture dans un parcour expérimental chez le rat blanc.L’Année Psychologique, 1967,67, 377–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Collier, G., &Jennings, J. W. Work as a determinant of instrumental performance.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969,68, 659–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. D’Amato, M. R. Derived motives,Annual Review of Psychology, 1974,25, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davidson, A. Factors affecting keypress responding by rats in the presence of free food.Psychonomic Science, 1971,24, 135–137.Google Scholar
  24. Davidson, A. B., &Davis, D. J. Appetitive control of responding in the presence of free food: Effects of d-amphetamine and fenfluramine.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,6, 16–18.Google Scholar
  25. Davis, S. F., Beighley, B. G., Libretto, I. S., Mollenhour, M. N., &Prytula, R. E. Contrafreeloading as a function of early environmental rearing conditions.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,6, 595–597.Google Scholar
  26. DeCamp, J. E. Relative distance as a factor in the white rats’ selection of a path.Psychobiology, 1920,2, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dember, W. N. Response by the rat to environmental change.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1956,49, 93–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Denny, M. R. A theory of experimental extinction and its relation to a general theory. In H. H. Kendler & J.T. Spence (Eds.),Essays in neobehaviorism: A memorial volume to Kenneth W. Spence. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.Google Scholar
  29. Downing, K., &Neuringer, A. Autoshaping as a function of prior food presentation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1976,26, 463–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duncan, I. J. H., &Hughes, B. O. Free and operant feeding in domestic fowls.Animal Behaviour, 1972,20, 775–777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Egger, M. D., &Miller, N. E. Secondary reinforcement in rats as a function of the stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962,64, 97–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Egger, M. D., &Miller, N. E. When is reward reinforcing?: An experimental study of the information hypothesis.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1963,56, 132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Enkema, S..Slavin, R., Spaeth, C., &Neuringer, A. Extinction in the presence of free food.Psychonomic Science, 1972,26, 267–269.Google Scholar
  34. Fallon, D., Thompson, D. M., &Schild, M. E. Concurrent food and water reinforced responding under food, water, and food and water deprivation.Psychological Reports, 1965,16, 1305–1311.Google Scholar
  35. Fantino, E., &Herrnstein, R. J. Secondary reinforcement and number of primary reinforcements.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968,11, 9–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ferster, C. B., &Skinner, B. F. Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fowler, H. Implications of sensory reinforcement. In R. Glaser (Ed.).The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  38. Furedy, J. J., &Klajner, F. Preference for information about an unmodifiable but rewarding outcome.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,95, 469–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gengerelli, J. A. Principle of maxima and minima in animal learning.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1930,11, 193–236.Google Scholar
  40. Gibbon, J., Berryman, R., &Thompson, R. L. Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974,21, 585–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hearst, E., &Jenkins, H. M. Sign-tracking: The stimulusreinforcer relation and directed action. Austin, Tex: Psychonomic Society, 1974.Google Scholar
  42. Herrnstein, R. J. Some factors influencing behavior in a two-response situation.Transaction of the New York Academy of Science, 1958,21, 35–45.Google Scholar
  43. Herrnstein, R. J. Superstition: A corollary of the principles of operant conditioning. In W. K. Honig (Ed.),Operant behavior-Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.Google Scholar
  44. Herrnstein, R. J. On the law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970,13, 243–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Herrnstein, R. J., &Loveland, D. H. Food-avoidance in hungry pigeons and other perplexities.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972,18, 369–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Herrnstein, R. J., &Loveland, D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975,24, 107–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hershiser, D., &Trapold, M. A. Preference for unsignalled over signalled direct reinforcement in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,77, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hothersall, D., Huey, D., &Thatcher, K. The preference of rats for free or response-produced food.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1973,1, 241–243.Google Scholar
  49. Hull, C. L. Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1943.Google Scholar
  50. Hursh, S. R., Navarick, D. J., &Fantino, E. “Automaintenance”: The role of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974,21, 117–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jennings, W., &Collier, G. Response effort as a determinant of instrumental performance in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970,72, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jensen, G. D. Preference for bar pressing over “freeloading” as a function of number of rewarded presses.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963,65, 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jensen, G. D., Leung, C. M., &Hess, D. T. “Freeloading” in the Skinner box contrasted with freeloading in the runway.Psychological Reports, 1970,27, 67–73.Google Scholar
  54. Kanarek, R. B., &Collier, G. Effort as a determinant of choice in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1973,84, 332–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kelleher, R. T., &Gollub, L. R. A review of positive conditioned reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962,5, 543–597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Killeen, P. Response rate as a factor in choice.Psychonomic Science, 1968,12, 34.Google Scholar
  57. Kish, G. B. Studies of sensory reinforcement. In W. K. Honig (Ed.),Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.Google Scholar
  58. Kleinman, K. M., McLaughlin, R. J., Gerard, I. C., Bosza, D. A., &Clipper, R. C. Rats’ preference for the more effortful of two responses as a function of prior experience.Psychological Reports, 1976,38, 931–937.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Knutson, J. F., &Carlson, C. W. Operant responding with free access to the reinforcer: A replication and extension.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1973,1, 133–136.Google Scholar
  60. Koffer, K., &Coulson, G. Feline indolence: Cats prefer free to response-produced food.Psychonomic Science, 1971,24, 41–42.Google Scholar
  61. Kopp, J., Bourland, G., Tarte, R. D., &Vernon, C. R. Acquisition of bar pressing in nondeprived rats.Psychological Record, 1976,26, 49–54.Google Scholar
  62. Kuo, Z. Y. The nature of unsuccessful acts and their order of elimination in animal behavior.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1922,2, 1–27.Google Scholar
  63. Lambe, D. R., & Guy, E. G. A comparison of the preference for free vs. earned food in rats and mongolian gerbils.Proceedings of the Ohio Academy of Science, April 1973.Google Scholar
  64. Larson, L. D., &Tarte, R. D. The effects of training and effortfulness on rats’ choice behavior in a modified T-maze.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976,7, 506–508.Google Scholar
  65. Leung, C. M., Jensen, G. D., &Tapley, R. P. “Freeloading” in a runway as a function of amount of training and type of reinforcement schedule.Psychological Reports, 1968,22, 211–214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Lewis, M. Psychological effect of effort.Psychological Bulletin, 1965,64, 183–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lewis, P., Lewin, L., Muehleisen, P., &Stoyak, M. Preference for signalled reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974,22, 143–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Logan, F. A. Incentive. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  69. Mahoney, M. J. Research issues in self-management.Behavior Therapy, 1972,3, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mahoney, M. J., &Bandura, A. Self-reinforcement in pigeons.Learning and Motivation, 1972,3, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McLaugeilin, R. J., Kleinman, K. M., & Vaughn, L. G. Effects of prior training at leverpressing on rats’ subsequent responding for food or water in the presence of free rewards.Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1973,8, 845–846. (Summary)Google Scholar
  72. Mitchell, D., Scott, D. W., &Williams, K. D. Container neophobia and the rats’ preference for earned food.Behavioral Biology, 1973,9, 613–624.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mitchell, D., Williams, K. D., &Sutter, J. Container neophobia as a predictor of preference for earned foods by rats.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974,4, 182–184.Google Scholar
  74. Moore, J., &Fantino, E. Choice and response contingencies.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 197523, 339–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Morgan, M. J. Effects of post-weaning environment on learning in the rat.Animal Behaviour, 1973,21, 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Morgan, M. J. Resistance to satiation.Animal Behaviour, 1974,22, 449–466. (a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Morgan, M. J. Do rats like to work for their food?Learning and Motivation, 1974,5, 352–368. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Morgan, M. J., Einon, D. F., &Nicholas, D. The effects of isolation rearing on behavior inhibition in the rat.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1975,27, 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Neuringer, A. J. Animals respond for food in the presence of free food.Science, 1969,166, 399–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Neuringer, A. J. Many responses per food reward with free food present.Science, 1970,169, 503–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Osborne, S. R., &Shelby, M. Stimulus change as a factor in response maintenance with free food available.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975,24, 17–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pallaud, B. Contribution à l’étude d’une situation de choix la Souris.Revue du Comportement Animal, 1971,5, 293–297.Google Scholar
  83. Peterson, G. B., Ackil, J. E., Frommer, G. P., &Hearst, E. Conditioned approach and contact behavior towards signals for food or brain stimulation reinforcement.Science, 1972,177, 1009–1011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Powell, R. L. Comparative studies of the preference for free vs. response-produced reinforcers.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1974,2, 185–188.Google Scholar
  85. Premack, D. Toward empirical behavior laws: I. Positive reinforcement.Psycholgical Review, 1959,66, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rachlin, H., &Baum, W. M. Effects of alternative reinforcement: Does the source matter?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972,18, 231–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rescorla, R. A., &Skucy, J. C. Effect of response-independent reinforcers during extinction.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969,67, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Robertson, L. C., &Anderson, S. C. The effects of differing type and magnitude of reward on the contrafreeloading phenomenon in rats.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1975,3, 325–328.Google Scholar
  89. Revusky, S., &Garcia, J. Learned associations over long delays. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  90. Sawisch, L. P., &Denny, M. R. Reversing the reinforcement contingencies of eating and keypecking behaviors.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1973,1, 189–192.Google Scholar
  91. Seligman, M. E. P. On the generality of the laws of learning.Psychological Review, 1970,77, 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Singh, D. Preference for bar-pressing to obtain reward over free-loading in rats and children.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970,73, 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Singh, D. Preference for mode of obtaining reinforcement in rats with lesions in septal or ventromedial hypothalamic area.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1972,80, 259–268. (a)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Singh, D. The pied piper vs. the Protestant ethic.Psychology Today, 1972,5, 53–56. (b)Google Scholar
  95. Singh, D., &Query, W. T. Preference for work over “free-loading” in children.Psychonomic Science, 1971,24, 77–79.Google Scholar
  96. Skinner, B. F. The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938.Google Scholar
  97. Skinner, B. F. “Superstition” in the pigeon.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1948,38, 168–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Stephens, R. M., Metze, L. P., &Craig, J. R. The Protestant ethic effect in a multichoice environment.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,6, 137–139.Google Scholar
  99. Stiers, M., &Silberberg, A. Lever-contact responses in rats: Automaintenance with and without a negative response reinforcer dependency.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1974,22, 497–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stolz, S. B., &Lott, D. F. Establishment in rats of a persistent response producing a net loss of reinforcement.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964,57, 147–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Tarte, R. D. Earned versus free rewards phenomenon in humans.Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972,7, 880. (Summary)Google Scholar
  102. Tarte, R. D. Extinction of rats’ barpressing in the presence of free food.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1974,2, 289–292.Google Scholar
  103. Tarte, R. D., &Snyder, R. L. Barpressing in the presence of free food as a function of food deprivation.Psychonomic Science, 1972,26, 169–170.Google Scholar
  104. Tarte, R. D., &Snyder, R. L. Some sources of variation in the bar pressing versus freeloading phenomenon in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1973,84, 128–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Tarte, R. D., Townsend, S. G., &Vernon, C. R. Housing environments and the barpressing vs. freeloading phenomenon in rats.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973,2, 69–71.Google Scholar
  106. Tarte, R. D., Townsend, S. G., Vernon, C. R., &Rovner, L. An examination of various deprivation-reward combinations in the barpressing vs. freeloading phenomenon in rats.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974,3, 227–229.Google Scholar
  107. Tarte, R. D., &Vernon, C. R. Rats’ barpressing in the presence of free food as a function of fixed-ratio schedules.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974,3, 34–36.Google Scholar
  108. Taylor, G. A limitation of the contrafreeloading phenomenon.Psychonomic Science, 1972,29, 173–174.Google Scholar
  109. Taylor, G. T. Discriminability and the contrafreeloading phenomenon.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1975,88, 104–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Thompson, M. E. An experimental investigation of the gradient of reinforcement in maze learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1944,34, 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tolman, E. C. Principles of performance.Psychological Review, 1955,62, 315–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wallace, P. Complex environments: Effects on brain development.Science, 1974,185, 1035–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wallace, R. F., Osborne, S., Norborg, J., &Fantino, E. Stimulus change contemporaneous with food presentation maintains responding in the presence of free food.Science, 1973,182, 1038–1039.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Waters, R. H. The principle of least effort in learning.Journal of General Psychology, 1934,16, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Welker, W. I., &King, W. A. Effects of stimulus novelty on gnawing and eating by rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962,55, 838–842.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Williams, D. R., &Williams, H. Automaintenance in the pigeon: Sustained pecking despite contingent nonreinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969,12, 511–520.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Yoshioka, J. G. Weber’s law in the discrimination of maze distance by the white rat.University of California Publication of Psychology, 1929,4, 155–184.Google Scholar
  118. Zeiler, M. D. Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968,11, 405–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zentall, T. R., &Hogan, D. E. Key pecking in pigeons produced by pairing keylight with inaccessible grain.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975,23, 199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve R. Osborne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations