Premium
INTERACTIONS IN MULTIPLE SCHEDULES: THE ROLE OF THE STIMULUS‐REINFORCER CONTINGENCY 1
Author(s) -
Spealman Roger D.
Publication year - 1976
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-79
Subject(s) - reinforcement , food delivery , pecking order , component (thermodynamics) , psychology , stimulus (psychology) , schedule , duration (music) , statistics , developmental psychology , audiology , social psychology , computer science , cognitive psychology , mathematics , ecology , medicine , biology , art , physics , literature , marketing , business , operating system , thermodynamics
In Experiments I and II, pigeons were exposed to single‐key multiple schedules of response‐independent and ‐dependent food presentation. Components were correlated with different keylights. When the rate of food presentation in the first component exceeded that in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively high at onset of the first component. Overall rate in that component varied inversely with component duration and the rate of food presentation in the second component. When responding was maintained in the second component, the local rate of key pecking was relatively low at onset of that component. Overall rate in the second component varied directly with component duration and the rate of food presentation in that component. In Experiment III, pigeons were exposed to a two‐key multiple schedule. Pecks on a constantly illuminated key produced food. Components were correlated with the color of a second key on which pecks had no scheduled consequences. The effects of component duration and rate of food presentation under the single‐key response‐dependent schedule were synthesized by combining response rates on each concurrently available key under the two‐key procedure. The results support an account of multiple‐schedule interactions in terms of the joint influence on responding of stimulus‐reinforcer and response‐reinforcer contingencies.