Davison Michael, Baum William M
University of Auckland.
J Exp Anal Behav. 2006 Nov;86(3):269-83. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.56-05.
Six pigeons were trained on a procedure in which seven components arranged different food-delivery ratios on concurrent variable-interval schedules each session. The components were unsignaled, lasted for 10 food deliveries, and occurred in random order with a 60-s blackout between components. The schedules were arranged using a switching-key procedure in which two responses on a center key changed the schedules and associated stimuli on two side keys. In Experiment 1, over five conditions, an increasing proportion of food deliveries accompanied by a magazine light was replaced with the presentation of the magazine light only. Local analyses of preference showed preference pulses toward the alternative that had just produced either a food-plus-magazine-light or magazine-light-only presentation, but pulses after food deliveries were always greater than those after magazine lights. Increasing proportions of magazine lights did not change the size of preference pulses after food or magazine-light presentations. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of correlations between food ratios and magazine-light ratios: In Condition 6, magazine-light ratios in components were inversely correlated (-1.0) with food ratios, and in Condition 7, magazine-light ratios were uncorrelated with food ratios. In Conditions 8 and 9, pecks also produced occasional 2.5-s flashes of a green keylight. In Condition 8, food and magazine-light ratios were correlated 1.0 whereas food and green-key ratios were correlated -1.0. In Condition 9, food and green-key ratios were correlated 1.0 whereas food and magazine-light ratios were correlated -1.0. Preference pulses toward alternatives after magazine lights and green keys depended on the correlation between these event ratios and the food ratios: If the ratios were correlated +1.0, positive preference pulses resulted; if the correlation was -1.0, preference pulses were negative. These results suggest that the Law of Effect has more to do with events signaling consequences than with strengthening responses.
六只鸽子接受了一种训练程序,在每次训练中,七个组件在并发可变间隔时间表上安排不同的食物投放比例。这些组件没有信号提示,持续进行10次食物投放,并且以随机顺序出现,组件之间有60秒的黑屏时间。时间表是通过一种切换键程序安排的,在中心键上进行两次反应会改变两侧键上的时间表和相关刺激。在实验1中,在五个条件下,越来越多伴随食物投放的食盒灯呈现被仅呈现食盒灯所取代。偏好的局部分析表明,偏好脉冲朝着刚刚产生食物加食盒灯或仅食盒灯呈现的选项,但食物投放后的脉冲总是大于食盒灯后的脉冲。食盒灯比例的增加并没有改变食物或食盒灯呈现后偏好脉冲的大小。实验2研究了食物比例与食盒灯比例之间相关性的影响:在条件6中,组件中的食盒灯比例与食物比例呈负相关(-1.0),在条件7中,食盒灯比例与食物比例不相关。在条件8和9中,啄击还会偶尔产生2.5秒的绿色键灯闪烁。在条件8中,食物和食盒灯比例相关系数为1.0,而食物和绿色键比例相关系数为-1.0。在条件9中,食物和绿色键比例相关系数为1.0,而食物和食盒灯比例相关系数为-1.0。食盒灯和绿色键之后对选项的偏好脉冲取决于这些事件比例与食物比例之间的相关性:如果比例相关系数为+1.0,则产生正偏好脉冲;如果相关系数为-1.0,则偏好脉冲为负。这些结果表明,效果律更多地与信号后果的事件有关,而不是与强化反应有关。