Premium
RESISTANCE TO REINFORCEMENT CHANGE IN MULTIPLE AND CONCURRENT SCHEDULES ASSESSED IN TRANSITION AND AT STEADY STATE
Author(s) -
McLean Anthony P.,
Blampied Neville M.
Publication year - 1995
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.1995.63-1
Subject(s) - reinforcement , schedule , momentum (technical analysis) , blackout , extinction (optical mineralogy) , operant conditioning , component (thermodynamics) , psychology , matching law , variable (mathematics) , statistics , social psychology , computer science , mathematics , chemistry , physics , mathematical analysis , power (physics) , mineralogy , electric power system , finance , quantum mechanics , economics , thermodynamics , operating system
Behavioral momentum theory relates resistance to change of responding in a multiple‐schedule component to the total reinforcement obtained in that component, regardless of how the reinforcers are produced. Four pigeons responded in a series of multiple‐schedule conditions in which a variable‐interval 40‐s schedule arranged reinforcers for pecking in one component and a variable‐interval 360‐s schedule arranged them in the other. In addition, responses on a second key were reinforced according to variable‐interval schedules that were equal in the two components. In different parts of the experiment, responding was disrupted by changing the rate of reinforcement on the second key or by delivering response‐independent food during a blackout separating the two components. Consistent with momentum theory, responding on the first key in Part 1 changed more in the component with the lower reinforcement total when it was disrupted by changes in the rate of reinforcement on the second key. However, responding on the second key changed more in the component with the higher reinforcement total. In Parts 2 and 3, responding was disrupted with free food presented during intercomponent blackouts, with extinction (Part 2) or variable‐interval 80‐s reinforcement (Part 3) arranged on the second key. Here, resistance to change was greater for the component with greater overall reinforcement. Failures of momentum theory to predict short‐term differences in resistance to change occurred with disruptors that caused greater change between steady states for the richer component. Consistency of effects across disruptors may yet be found if short‐term effects of disruptors are assessed relative to the extent of change observed after prolonged exposure.