Abstract
Three pigeons were exposed to fixed-time (FT) 15 sec, fixed-interval (FI) 15 sec for performing an arbitrary response, a reversal back to FT 15 sec, and then extinction (no reinforcement). During each phase, a computer-controlled tracking system continuously recorded the position of the bird’s head as it moved freely in the experimental chamber. During the first exposure to FT 15 sec, all 3 birds developed a pattern of feeder-wall-directed behavior with occasional circular excursions from the feeder immediately following reinforcement. During FI 15 sec, all birds performed the arbitrary operant, which consisted of contacting a virtual target sphere near the rear of the chamber, and did not engage in feeder-wall-directed behavior. During the reversal back to FT 15 sec, the birds developed a behavior sequence consisting of moving in the direction of the target sphere after reinforcement, followed by feeder-wall-directed behavior prior to the next reinforcement. During extinction, either moves toward the target sphere or wall-directed behavior occurred separately, interspersed with reappearance of the two as a sequence, followed by cessation of both members of the behavior sequence. These findings indicate that prior reinforcement of an arbitrary response can affect the location and form of superstitious behavior that develops near the beginning of the interreinforcement interval, but that other factors (e.g., immediacy of reinforcement) affect the location and form of the behavior near the end of the interval. The findings can be interpreted in the context of superstitious chaining.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Appel, J. B., &Hiss, R. H. (1962) The discrimination of contingent from noncontingent reinforcement.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,55, 37–39.
Catania, A. C., &Cutts, D. (1963). Experimental control of superstitious responding in humans.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,6, 203–208.
D’Andrea, T. (1969). Extinction of a heterogeneous chain after several reinforcement schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,12, 127–135.
Epstein, R. (1985). Extinction-induced resurgence: Preliminary investigations and possible applications.Psychological Record,35, 143–153.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1966). Superstition: A corollary of the principles of operant conditioning. In W. K. Honig (Ed.),Operant behavior. Areas of research and application (pp 33–51). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kelleher, R. T., &Gollub, L. R. (1962) A review of positive con ditioned reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,5, 543–597.
Lachter, G. D. (1971). Some temporal parameters of non-contingent reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,16, 207–217.
Lachter, G. D., Cole, B. K., &Schoenfeld, W. N. (1971). Response rate under varying frequency of non-contingent reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,15, 233–236.
Laties, V. G., Weiss, B., Clark, R. L., &Reynolds, M. D. (1965) Overt “mediating” behavior during temporally spaced responding.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,8, 107–116.
Neuringer, A. J. (1970). Superstitious key pecking after three peck-produced reinforcements.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,13, 127–134.
Pear, J. J., &Eldridge, G. D. (1984). The operant-respondent distinction: Future directions.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,42, 453–467.
Pear, J. J., &Legris, J. A. (1987) Shaping by automated tracking of an arbitrary operant response.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,47, 241–247.
Skinner, B. F. (1938).The behavior of organisms. An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). “Superstition” in the pigeon.Journal of Experimental Psychology,38, 168–172.
Staddon, J. E. R., &Simmelhag, V. L. (1971). The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior.Psychological Review,78, 3–43.
Timberlake, W., &Lucas, G. A. (1985). The basis of superstitious behavior: Chance contingency, stimulus substitution, or appetitive behavior?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,44, 279–299.
Zeiler, M. D. (1968). Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,11, 405–414.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant A7461 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to J. J. Pear, and the study was conducted while G. D. Eldridge was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada fellowship and L. J. Torgrud was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada fellowship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eldridge, G.D., Pear, J.J., Torgrud, L.J. et al. Effects of prior response-contingent reinforcement on superstitious behavior. Animal Learning & Behavior 16, 277–284 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209077
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209077