ALTERNATIVE REINFORCEMENT INCREASES RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: PAVLOVIAN OR OPERANT CONTINGENCIES?

Abstract

Two multiple‐schedule experiments with pigeons examined the effect of adding food reinforcement from an alternative source on the resistance of the reinforced response (target response) to the decremental effects of satiation and extinction. In Experiment 1, key pecks were reinforced by food in two components according to variable‐interval schedules and, in some conditions, food was delivered according to variable‐time schedules in one of the components. The rate of key pecking in a component was negatively related to the proportion of reinforcers from the alternative (variable‐time) source. Resistance to satiation and extinction, in contrast, was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement in the component. Experiment 2 was conceptually similar except that the alternative reinforcers were contingent on a specific concurrent response. Again, the rate of the target response varied as a function of its relative reinforcement, but its resistance to satiation and extinction varied directly with the overall rate of reinforcement in the component stimulus regardless of its relative reinforcement. Together the results of the two experiments suggest that the relative reinforcement of a response (the operant contingency) determines its rate, whereas the stimulus‐reinforcement contingency (a Pavlovian contingency) determines its resistance to change.