Conjoint schedules of timeout deletion in pigeons

Discriminated timeout avoidance in pigeons: the roles of added stimuli

Two experiments examined pigeons' postponement of a signaled extinction period, or timeout (TO), from an ongoing schedule of response-dependent food delivery. A concurrent-operant procedure was used in which responses on one (food) key produced food according to a variable-interval schedule and responses on a second (postponement) key delayed the next scheduled TO according to a response-TO (R-TO) interval. A series of response-independent stimulus changes on the food key temporally partitioned the R-TO into three equal segments (S1, S2, and S3). Postponement responses, in addition to postponing TO, also reinstated S1, the stimulus correlated with the greatest temporal distance from TO. In Experiment 1, the R-TO interval was manipulated systematically across blocks of sessions (conditions) at a given ratio of R-TO:TO duration. This R-TO:TO ratio was manipulated across blocks of conditions (phases). Postponement response rates varied inversely with R-TO interval in each phase. Changes in the R-TO:TO ratio did not produce consistent differences except at the 1:10 ratio for some pigeons, where it disrupted postponement responding in some conditions. Most of the postponement responses occurred in the presence of S2 and S3, the stimuli most proximal to TO, whereas most of the food-key responses occurred in S1. In Experiment 2, the R-TO contingencies were systematically manipulated in the presence of the time-correlated stimuli. In one set of conditions, the R-TO contingencies were made either ineffective or less effective in the presence of one or more stimuli. Postponement responses typically shifted to stimuli in the presence of which responses were relatively more effective. Postponement responses decreased markedly when the added stimuli were removed, and then recovered when the stimuli were reinstated. Results from both experiments indicate that the added stimuli in a discriminated TO-avoidance procedure serve predominately discriminative functions, delineating periods during which behavior is maximally effective. The results parallel those obtained in shock-avoidance procedures, providing further evidence that TO functions as an aversive stimulus.

Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

Three experiments were conducted to examine pigeons' postponement of signaled extinction periods (timeouts) from a schedule of food reinforcement when such responding neither decreased overall timeout frequency nor increased the overall frequency of food reinforcement. A discrete-trial procedure was used in which a response during the first 5 s of a trial postponed an otherwise immediate 60-s timeout to a later part of that same trial but had no effect on whether the timeout occurred. During time-in periods, responses on a second key produced food according to a random-interval 20-s schedule. In Experiment 1, the response-timeout interval was 45 s under postponement conditions and 0 s under extinction conditions (responses were ineffective in postponing timeouts). The percentage of trials with a response was consistently high when the timeout-postponement contingency was in effect and decreased to low levels when it was discontinued under extinction conditions. In Experiment 2, the response-timeout interval was also 45 s but postponement responses increased the duration of the timeout, which varied from 60 s to 105 s across conditions. Postponement responding was maintained, generally at high levels, at all timeout durations, despite sometimes large decreases in the overall frequency of food reinforcement. In Experiment 3, timeout duration was held constant at 60 s while the response-timeout interval was varied systematically across conditions from 0 s to 45 s. Postponement responding was maintained under all conditions in which the response-timeout interval exceeded 0 s (the timeout interval in the absence of a response). In some conditions of Experiment 3, which were designed to control for the immediacy of food reinforcement and food-correlated (time-in) stimuli, responding postponed timeout but the timeout was delayed whether a response occurred or not. Responding was maintained for 2 of 3 subjects, suggesting that behavior was negatively reinforced by timeout postponement rather than positively reinforced by the more immediate presentation of food or food-correlated (time-in) stimuli.

Procrastination by pigeons with fixed-interval response requirements

Two experiments studied the phenomenon of procrastination, in which pigeons chose a larger, more delayed response requirement over a smaller, more immediate response requirement. The response requirements were fixed-interval schedules that did not lead to an immediate food reinforcer, but that interrupted a 55-s period in which food was delivered at random times. The experiments used an adjusting-delay procedure in which the delay to the start of one fixed-interval requirement was varied over trials to estimate an indifference point--a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Experiment 1 found that as the delay to a shorter fixed-interval requirement was increased, the adjusting delay to a longer fixed-interval requirement also increased, and the rate of increase depended on the duration of the longer fixed-interval requirement. Experiment 2 found a strong preference for a fixed delay of 10 s to the start of a fixed-interval requirement compared to a mixed delay of either 0 or 20 s. The results help to distinguish among different equations that might describe the decreasing effectiveness of a response requirement with increasing delay, and they suggest that delayed reinforcers and delayed response requirements have symmetrical but opposite effects on choice.

Procrastination by pigeons: preference for larger, more delayed work requirements

In three experiments, pigeons chose between alternatives that required the completion of a small ratio schedule early in the trial or a larger ratio schedule later in the trial. Completion of the ratio requirement did not lead to an immediate reinforcer, but simply allowed the events of the trial to continue. In Experiment 1, the ratio requirements interrupted periods in which food was delivered on a variable-time schedule. In Experiments 2 and 3, each ratio requirement was preceded and followed by a delay, and only one reinforcer was delivered, at the end of each trial. Two of the experiments used an adjusting-ratio procedure in which the ratio requirement was increased and decreased over trials so as to estimate an indifference point--a ratio size at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. These experiments found clear evidence for "procrastination"--the choice of a larger but more delayed response requirement. In some cases, subjects chose the more delayed ratio schedule even when it was larger than the more immediate alternative by a factor of four or more. The results suggest that as the delay to the start of a ratio requirement is increased, it has progressively less effect on choice behavior, in much the same way that delaying a positive reinforcer reduces it effect on choice.