Abstract
Rats increased eating that produced access to a running-wheel or increased running that produced access to food, depending on which response was potentially deprived, relative to baseline, by the scheduled ratio of responding. Under both schedules, instrumental responding significantly exceeded appropriate baselines of the noncontingent effects of the schedule. The results contradicted the hypothesis that reinforcement is produced by an overall or momentary probability differential between two responses; instead, they supported the condition of response deprivation as a key determinant of reinforcement. Of several recent quantitative models that predict reversibility of reinforcement by schedule changes, only the predictions of the relative response-deprivation model did not differ significantly from the data of either schedule.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
Premack, D. Personal communication, 1973.
Timberlake, W.Instrumental performance and the operant baseline of the instrumental response. Unpublished paper, Indiana University, 1975.
Mazur, J. E. Personal communication, September 1978.
References
Allison, J. Microbehavioral features of nutritive and nonnutritive drinking in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,76, 408–417.
Allison, J. Contrast, induction, facilitation, suppression and conservation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1976,25, 185–199.
Allison, J., Miller, M., &Wozny, M. Conservation in behavior.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1979,108, 4–34.
Allison, J., &Timukklakk, W. Instrumental and contingent saccharin licking in rais: Response deprivation and reinforcement.Learning and Motivation, 1974,5, 231–247.
Barnett, S. A., Dickson, R. G., Marples, T. G., &Radiia, E., Sequences of feeding, Sampling and exploration by wild and laboratory rats.Behavioral Processes, 1978,3, 29–44.
Collier, G., &Hirsch, E. Reinforcing properties of spontaneous activity,Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,77, 155–160.
Dunham, P. J. The nature of reinforcing stimuli. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.),Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Eisknukhgkr, R., Karpman, M., &Trattnkr, J. What is the necessary and sufficient condition for reinforcement in the contingency situation?Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,74, 342–350.
Falk, J. L. The nature and determinants of adjunctive behavior,Physiology & Behavior, 1971,6, 577–588.
Fkrstkr, C. B., &Skinner, B. F. Schedules of reinforcement, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.
Luck, R. D. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis, New York: Wiley, 1959.
Mazur, J. E. The matching law and quantifications related to Premack’s principle.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975,104, 374–386.
Mazur, J. E. Quantitative studies of reinforcement relativity,Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1977,27, 137–150.
Mkkhl, P. E. On the circularity of the law of effect,Psychological Bulletin, 1950,45, 52–75.
Prkmack, D. Toward empirical behavior laws: I, Positive reinforcement,Psychological Review, 1959,66, 219–234.
Prkmack, D. Reinforcment theory. In D. Levine (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1965, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.
Premack, D. Catching up with common sense or two sides of a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment, In R. Glaser (Ed.),The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
Rachlin, H., &Burkhard, B. The temporal triangle: Response substitution in instrumental conditioning,Psychological Review, 1978,85, 22–45.
Seligman, M. E. P. On the generality of the laws of learning.Psychological Review, 1970,77, 406–418.
Shettleworth, S. J. Constraints on learning, In D. S. Lehrman, R. A. Hinde, & E. Shaw (Eds.),Advances in the study of behavior (vol. 4), New York: Academic Press, 1972.
Staddon, J. E. R. Schedule-induced behavior. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.),Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Staddon, J. E. R. Operant behavior as adaptation to constraint.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1979,108, 48–67.
Stevenson, J. A. F., &Rixon, R. H. Environmental temperature and deprivation of food and water on the spontaneous activity of rats.Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1957,29, 575–584.
Terhune, J. G. The relationship between momentary response probabilities and momentary reinforcement effects.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1978,6, 187–192.
Timhkrlakk, W. Licking one saccharin solution for access to another: Contingent and noncontingent effects,Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 277–288.
Timhkrlakk, W., &Allison, J. Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance.Psychological Review, 1974,81, 146–164.
Valle, F. P. Rats’ performance on repeated tests in the open field as a function of age,Psychonomic Science, 1971,23, 333–335.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a biomedical sciences grant to Indiana University (5031490).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Timberlake, W., Wozny, M. Reversibility of reinforcement between eating and running by schedule changes: A comparison of hypotheses and models. Animal Learning & Behavior 7, 461–469 (1979). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209702
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209702