Behavioural momentum theory

Question 1

DRL

Answer 1

Differential reinforcement of low rates (pausing)

Question 2

DRH

Answer 2

Differential reinforcement of high rates (burst)

Question 3

DRA

Answer 3

Differential reinforcement of alternative behaviour

Question 4

Nevin (1974)

Answer 4

Greater response seen for DRH compared to DRL.
Response rates are not appropriate for measuring response strength. This is because we only measure responses by number of times a microswitch closes - not the entire behaviour. Hence, for DRH and DRL schedules this method of measuring responses does not fit.

Question 5

Nevin (1974)

Answer 5

Pigeons responding on a two-component multiple schedule. VI 60s (60 food/hr) rich and VI 180s (20foods/hr) lean. Blackout during ICI. Let response stabilise, then introduce a disruptor in the form of free food during the ICI.
Graph: found that the disruptor of free food cause a decrease in rate of responding over all conditions, but that this disruption was larger for the lean component.
Level of line shows resistance to change. Rich - more resistant to change than the lean.
–> Hence Nevin suggested that response strength be measured using resistance to change, rather than response rate.

Question 6

Behavioural momentum theory

Answer 6

Momentum = mass x velocity
Behaviour = resistance to change x response rate
– each component is independent of each other

Question 7

Nevin (1974)

Answer 7

Dissociating response rates and resistance to change.
Set up a 2 component multiple-schedule with red and green keylights and a brief ICI - both reinforced at the same rate. Then introduced free food to the red component.
Free food increased the stimulus reinforcer relationship (S-R), but decreased the behaviour/response - reinforcer relationship (B-R).
Stabalised and ran under EXT.
–> Bar graph.
Resistance to change. Responding decreased across both sessions, but faster for the lean component. Shows tat the rate of reinforcement in the presence of stimulus context determines resistance to change - not response rates.

Question 8

Nevin et al (1990) EXP 2

Answer 8

Same idea as previous experiment: but the added food reinforcers came from an alternative response.
Used a 3 component multiple schedule with 2 keys, and after establishing baseline they tested resistance to EXT.
Left key = reinforced at 45/hr - alternative key
Right key = reinforced at 15/hr
When the two keys were green, the left was under EXT. When the two keys were red, the left was under EXT and the right reinforced at 60/hr.
They then compared responding and measure resistance to change.

Question 9

Mace et al (2010)

Answer 9

DRA to decrease bullying behaviour.
DRA may decrease the rate of behaviour but increase its persistence (resistance to change).
Found that problem behaviour decreased/hour – but it did cause an increase in persistence over time.
–> TO SOLVE = train the alternative response in a separate context first before testing in extinction.

Question 10

Mace et al (2010)

Answer 10

Trained alternative behaviour in a different context first, separate to the target only behaviour. Compared this to a normal DRA schedule where both were trained in the same context. He then assessed resistance to EXT.
Found combining the target only and alternative after they had been trained in separate stimulus contexts, led to a reduced persistence of the target response relative to DRA.