Response-reinforcer dependency and resistance to change

The effects of the response-reinforcer dependency on resistance to change were studied in three experiments with rats. In Experiment 1, lever pressing produced reinforcers at similar rates after variable interreinforcer intervals in each component of a two-component multiple schedule. Across conditions, in the fixed component, all reinforcers were response-dependent; in the alternative component, the percentage of response-dependent reinforcers was 100, 50 (i.e., 50% response-dependent and 50% response-independent) or 10% (i.e., 10% response-dependent and 90% response-independent). Resistance to extinction was greater in the alternative than in the fixed component when the dependency in the former was 10%, but was similar between components when this dependency was 100 or 50%. In Experiment 2, a three-component multiple schedule was used. The dependency was 100% in one component and 10% in the other two. The 10% components differed on how reinforcers were programmed. In one component, as in Experiment 1, a reinforcer had to be collected before the scheduling of other response-dependent or independent reinforcers. In the other component, response-dependent and -independent reinforcers were programmed by superimposing a variable-time schedule on an independent variable-interval schedule. Regardless of the procedure used to program the dependency, resistance to extinction was greater in the 10% components than in the 100% component. These results were replicated in Experiment 3 in which, instead of extinction, VT schedules replaced the baseline schedules in each multiple-schedule component during the test. We argue that the relative change in dependency from Baseline to Test, which is greater when baseline dependencies are high rather than low, could account for the differential resistance to change in the present experiments. The inconsistencies in results across the present and previous experiments suggest that the effects of dependency on resistance to change are not well understood. Additional systematic analyses are important to further understand the effects of the response-reinforcer relation on resistance to change and to the development of a more comprehensive theory of behavioral persistence.