Asignatura: Psicologa del Aprendizaje.

Curso: 2014/2015.

ACTIVIDADES FORMATIVAS COMPLEMENTARIAS.

A sugerencia del equipo docente se realizarn una serie de actividades formativas que
sern complementarias al estudio del texto base. Estas actividades se irn desarrollando a
lo largo del curso y sern supervisadas por los Profesores Tutores en los Centros
Asociados. Estas actividades estn organizadas en dos bloques y a continuacin
presentamos una breve descripcin de las mismas:

1. ANLISIS DE VDEOS DIDCTICOS.

Los alumnos tendrn a su disposicin en la pgina web de la asignatura una serie de vdeos
didcticos que podrn utilizar como ayuda al estudio de la asignatura. Los Profesores
Tutores en los Centros Asociados o en su espacio de tutora del curso virtual podrn
orientar a los alumnos sobre los conocimientos que han adquirido a partir de la
visualizacin de estos vdeos. El equipo docente facilitar, a travs del curso virtual, los
cuestionarios mediante los cuales se evaluar el progreso de los alumnos. Durante este
curso se evaluar el vdeo: Programas de reforzamiento.

1. Describa los cuatro programas simples de reforzamiento.

2. Compare los programas de razn y de intervalo.

3. En qu se diferencian, si es que se diferencian, los programas de intervalo y de

tiempo?

4. Defina y compare los programas de reforzamiento diferencial de tasas bajas y tasas

altas.

5. Clasificacin y definicin de los programas complejos de reforzamiento.

2. ANLISIS DE ARTCULO CIENTFICO.

El artculo propuesto para su anlisis durante el curso 2014-15 es: Herrnstein, R.J. (1961).
Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-274. Se trata del experimento
original donde informa sobre la ley de igualacin, y que se describe en el libro de texto en
las pginas 239-240.

1. Cul es la pregunta que se pretende responder con este experimento?

2. Describa brevemente el Mtodo del experimento.

3. Cul es el principal resultado que se obtuvo y cmo fue interpretado?

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE. STRENGTH OF RESPONSE AS A FUNCTION

OF FREQUENCY OF REINFORCEMENT1, 2
R. J. HERRNSTEIN
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

A previous paper (Herrnstein, 1958) reported how

pigeons behave on a concurrent schedule under which
they peck at either of two response-keys. The significant finding of this investigation was that the relative
frequency of responding to each of the keys may be
controlled within narrow limits by adjustments in an independent variable. In brief, the requirement for reinforcement in this procedure is the emission of a minimum number of pecks to each of the keys. The pigeon
receives food when it completes the requirement on
both keys. The frequency of responding to each key
was a close approximation to the minimum re-

quirement.

The present experiment explores the relative frequency of responding further. In the earlier study it
was shown that the output of behavior to each of two
keys may be controlled by specific requirements of outputs. Now we are investigating output as a function
of frequency of reinforcement. The earlier experiment
may be considered a study of differential reinforcement;
the present one, a study of strength of response. Both
experiments are attempts to elucidate the properties of
rdlative frequency of responding as a dependent variable.
MI,THOD

Subjects
Three adult, male, White Carneaux pigeons, maintained at 80% of free-feeding weights, and experimentally naive at the start of the study, were used.
Apparatus
A conventional experimental chamber for pigeons
(Ferster & Skinner, 1957) was modified to contain two
response-keys. Each key was a hinged, translucent
Plexiglas plate mounted behind a hole in the center
partition of the chamber. The pigeons pecked at a
circular.area (diameter = 0.75 inch) of the plate, and a
force of at least 15 grams was necessary to activate the
controlling circuitry. Any effective response operated
an audible relay behind the center partition; it has been
found that the resulting auditory feedback stabilizes the
topography of pecking. Behind each key was a group
of Christmas-tree lamps of various colors, each group
mounted in such a way that it cast significant amounts
of light through only one key. The two keys were

4.5 inches apart (center-to-center) around the vertical

midline of the center partition and on a horizontal line
about 9 inches from the floor of the chamber. Through
a 2-inch-square hole in the center partition, 2 inches
from the floor, the pigeon occasionally received the reinforcer-4 seconds' access to grain.
A masking noise and a low level of general illumination were provided.
Procedure
Preliminary training lasted for two sessions of 60 reinforcements each. During these sessions, a peck to
either key was reinforced only when the just-previous
reinforcement was for a peck to the other key. This
alternating pattern of reinforcement led rapidly to a
pattern of responding that consisted of almost perfect
alternation between the two keys. The left key was
always red; the right, always white.
During the experiment proper, responding to either
key was reinforced on a variable-interval schedule. The
schedule for one key was independent of the schedule
for the other. Thus, at any given moment, reinforcement could be made available on neither key, on one
key or the other, or on both keys. A reinforced
response to one key had no effect on the programmer
that scheduled reinforcements on the other.
The primary independent variable was the mean time
interval between reinforcements on each key. These
intervals were chosen so that the mean interval of reinforcement for the two keys taken together was held
constant at 1.5 minutes.3 The over-all average value of
1.5 minutes was produced by a number of pairs of
values for the two keys. The combined frequency of
reinforcement from independent variable-interval
schedules will be a constant if the values for each of the
two keys are chosen according to the hyperbolic
relationship:
1_
x

1_
y

in which x is the mean interval on one key, y is the mean

interval on the other, and c is the combined mean
3It should be noted that, by convention, the mean of a
variable-interval schedule refers to the minimum average interreinforcement time and not to the actual inter-reinforcement
time obtained under conditions of responding. Thus, if a
particular animal responds very slowly, the actual mean
interval of reinforcement may be larger than the value designated by the experimenter. The value designated is a minimum that is closely approached in practice because the
animal's rate of responding is ordinarily high in comparison
to the intervals in the reinforcement schedule.

11 wish to express my indebtedness to Dr. Douglas Anger of

the Upjohn Company for his valuable comments concerning
the interpretation of the data in this experiment.
2The work reported in this article was supported by Grant
G-6435 from the National Science Foundation, Washington,
D. C. to Harvard University.

267

268

R. J. HERRNSTEIN

interval for the two keys taken together. The pairs of

values used were VI(3) VI(3); VI(2.25) VI(4.5); VI(1.8)
VI(9); and VI(I.5) VI(-)-i.e., extinction on one of
the keys.
During most of the experiment, the pigeons were
penalized for switching from one key to the other.
Each time a peck to one key followed a peck to the
other key, no reinforcement was possible for 1.5 seconds. Thus, the pigeon never got fed immediately after
changing keys. When the pigeon switched keys before
the 1.5-second period was completed, the period simply
started anew. At least two consecutive pecks on a given
key were necessary before reinforcement was possible:
the first peck to start the period, and the second after it
was completed. This penalty for alternation will be
referred to as the "change-over delay of 1.5 seconds,"
or COD (1.5").
The sequence of pairs of values of the variableinterval schedules and the number of sessions at each
pair of values are shown in Table 1. Key A is the left,
red key; Key B is the right, white key. Sessions lasted
for 60 reinforcements, which required approximately
90 minutes since the over-all mean interval of reinforcement was always 1.5 minutes. Whether the COD was
present or absent is also shown.
RESULTS

Figure I shows the relative frequency with which the

pigeon pecked on Key A as a function of the relative
frequency with which it was reinforced on that key.
Each point on the graph is a mean of the last five sessions under a given pair of values of the variableinterval schedule. The COD operated on all these ses-

sions; the results without the COD will be given later.

The ordinate and abscissa values were calculated by
comparable methods. The number of responses
(ordinate) or reinforcements (abscissa) on Key A was
divided by the total number of responses or reinforcements, respectively. The five last sessions were pooled
to make this computation.
The diagonal line with a slope equal to 1.0 in Fig. I
shows the function that would be obtained if the relative frequency of responding were exactly equal to the
relative frequency of reinforcement. The empirical
values approximate the theoretical function with a
maximum discrepancy of only about 8%. There seems
to be no regular pattern to the deviations from the
theoretical function.
The absolute rate of responding on each of the keys is
shown in Fig. 2. Responses per hour are plotted against
reinforcements per hour, for each key separately and
for the two pigeons (231 and 055) that had an appreciable range of the independent variable. Data from the
same sessions are plotted in Fig. I and 2. With one
exception (Pigeon 055, Key A, at 40 reinforcements per
hour), the points in Fig. 2 approximate a linear function that passes through the origin. It will be shown
later that this relation between absolute rate of responding and absolute rate of reinforcement is the simplest
one that is compatible with the relative-frequency function presented in Fig. 1.

100

90

-055
.'--- 0
231

0
I

X-641

80/

70

a-

60-

(U)
w
U)
z
0
0.

50
z

o 40-

U)

0-

w7
ce 30

20

30

40

50

60

70

% REINFORCEMENTS ON KEY A

Fig. 1. Relative frequency of responding to Key A as a

function of relative frequency of reinforcement on Key A, for
three pigeons; COD (1.5") is present throughout.

10

20

30

REINFORCEMENTS PER

HOUR

Fig. 2. Rate of responding on each key as a function of

rate of reinforcement on that key, for two pigeons; COD
(1.5") is piesent throughout.

RELA TIVE A ND A BSOLUTE STRENGTH OF RESPONSE

269

Table I
Sequence of Procedures

Subject
055

VI on
KeyA
(min)
3
2.25
2.25
3
3
9
1.5
9

1.8.
231

641

3
3
9
1.5
9
1.8
4.5
3
2.25
2.25
3
3

VI on
KeyB
(min)
3
4.5
4.5
3
3
1.8
ext*
1.8
9
3
3
1.8
ext*
1.8
9
2.25
3
4.5
4.5
3
3

Sessions
20
18
43
44
25
35
37
20
39
35
17
35
37
17
40
38
17
16
45
34
16

"\%

No.of
COD
no

W800

no

yes
yes

no
yes
yes
yes

a.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

~400-

yes

yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes

yes

.\

200
N

20

60

40

% KEY-A REINF.

IOC

80

% KEY-B REINF.

Fig. 3. Number of alternations between the two keys as a

function of the absolute difference between the per cent of
reinforcements on each key, for three pigeons; COD (1.5") is
present throughout.

no

*extinction
The number of times a pigeon changed keys depended on the difference in frequency of reinforcement
on the two keys. Figure 3 shows this relation for the
three pigeons. The abscissa gives the difference, without regard to sign, between per cent of total reinforcement on one key and that on the other. Thus, when
the two keys are characterized by equal relative frequencies of reinforcement, the value on the abscissa is 0;
when the responding to one key is extinguished, the
value is 100, and so on. The ordinate gives simply the
average number of times the pigeon switched from
Key A to Key B, or vice versa. Once again, the data
are from the same sessions that supplied those in Fig. 1.
It should be noted, however, that in Fig. 3 there are
only four values for Pigeons 055 and 231 whereas there
were six in Fig. 1 and -2. This is the result of combining the three pairs of variable-interval schedules involving mean intervals of 9 minutes and 1.8 minutes.
(See Table 1.) The data at abscissa values of about
70 per cent are, therefore, based on means of 15, instead of 5, sessions. The functions in Fig. 3 are less
consistent than those in Fig. 1 and 2, but the frequency of alternations between keys clearly decreases
as the two keys are associated with increasingly different relative frequencies of reinforcement.
The relation shown in Fig. 3 is found only when the
COD is in operation. Figure 4 shows the frequency of

key changes with and without the COD when reinforcement frequency is either equally or unequally distributed between the two keys. The data from
Pigeon 231 are omitted from this figure, because this
055
RfA 9 Rf8

6000 _
Z
0

641

RfA= Rfe

U) 5000
U)
R

-B
w 4000

OR

iX

U1)

0.

~~~~~~~RfARf8
A

CD 3000
z

w 2000

nf

NO C 0COD
COD COD
ONO

COD

CNO
NOD

COD

CNOD
NOD

Fig. 4. Number of alternations between the two keys when

the COD was present or absent and when reinforcements were
equally or unequally distributed between the two keys, for
two pigeons.

R. J. HERRNSTEIN

270

bird was -not exposed to any procedure that combined

unequal frequencies of reinforcement with no COD.
Two facts are evident in Fig. 4. One is that the COD
markedly reduces the frequency of alternations between
the keys. The other is that unequal reinforcement
frequencies on the two keys reduce alternation only
when the COD (1.5") is present.
The COD also seems to play a role in the production
of the relation shown in Fig. 1, namely, the tendency
of the relative frequency of responding to match the
relative frequency of reinforcement. Pigeons 055 and
641 were both exposed to procedures in which the COD
was absent and'the relative frequency of reinforcement
on Key A was about 66%. The relative frequencies of
responding on Key A were 50% and 56% for the two
pigeons, respectively. In both these cases the departures from matching are outside the range of
departures obtained when the COD is present. (See
Fig. 1.)
DISCUSSION

The major problem posed by the present experiment

is to explain the simple correspondence in Fig. I between the relative frequency of reinforcement and the
relative frequency of responding. In a sense, this correspondence is readily explained by the curves in Fig. 2,
which suggest that the relation between the absolute
rate of responding and the absolute rate of reinforcement is a linear function that passes through the origin.
If this relation is represented asp = ke, in which p and e
denote the absolute frequencies of pecking and eating,
then the simple matching function, of Fig. I may be
expected to follow the form
pi
ke,
k(e, + e2)
pi + p2
The constant, k, drops out and the remaining expressions on each side of the equation denote relative frequencies of responding and reinforcement. The
equality of these two relative frequencies ma-y thus be
regarded as a consequence of a linear relation, of any
slope and zero intercept, between' the absolute frequencies. Moreover, this relation between the absolute
faites of responding and reinforcement is one that is
consonant with a plausible view of response strength:
Rate, of responding is a linear measure of response
strength, which is itself a linear function of frequency
of reinforcement. The correspondence in Fig. 1 would
thereby result from the fact that the behavior on each
of the two keys obeys a simple linear rule governing
strength of response. According to this point of view,
thea.jm Js match relative. frquency of responding to
relative fquency of reinforementnot. because they
t'ke into account what is happening on the two keys,
buit-b@vause they". respond to the two, keys in-

dependently.
-The' critical relation, p = ke, has been asserted
before. Skinner (1938, p. 130) has discussed a

quantity called the extinction ratio, which is the total

number of responses divided by the number of reinforced responses in a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement.4 He presented a small amount of data that
indicated that this quantity remained constant as the
size of the fixed interval was varied. The constancy of
the extinction ratio is merely another form, p/e = k,
of the function we find.
Perhaps the greatest vulnerability of the foregoing
account lies in its simplicity. If it were true that the
rate of responding is so simply related to the frequency
of reinforcement, the fact ought to have been well
established by now. We should expect that behavior in
a single-key situation would reveal the same linear relation shown in Fig. 2, and that with all the work done
with the single-key problem, the nature of the relation
between rate of responding and frequency of reinforcement would be known. Unfortunately, this information
is not'available. In few studies has the frequency of
reinforcement been varied over an adequately wide
range. Those which have done so have usually also involved manipulations in other, and possibly contaminating, variables.
A small amount of relevant material is shown in
Fig. 5. These curves are adapted from earlier studies
by Clark (1958), Wilson (1954), and Herrnstein (1955).
These three experimenters observed the convention of
plotting the independent variable as inter-reinforcement
time, rather than frequency of reinforcement. Clark
and Wilson used rats (Wilson used fixed-interval, instead of variable-interval, schedules); Herrnstein used
pigeons. Rate of responding clearly increases with
frequency of reinforcement. In these one-response
situations, however, we do not obtain the linear, function with zero intercept that was shown in Fig. 2. The
relation suggested by Fig. 5 has downward concavity.
Even if this concavity is taken to represent nothing
more than a natural ceiling on the rate of responding,
the function is still inappropriate, because the intercept
is greater than zero.
Perhaps a more relevant comparison can be made
with some data of Findley (1958), who devised a modification of concurrent scheduling not unlike the present
procedure. A pigeon responds to a key and is reinforced on a variable-interval schedule. By pecking a
second key, the pigeon alters the color of the firs't key.
Each color on the first key signifies a particular value
of the variable-interval schedule.' The two variableinterval schedules are independent, just as in the present
study. The difference between Findley's procedure and
4Skinner defined the extinction ratio as the number of unreinforced responses divided by the number of reinforced
responses, but in actual computation he used the total number
of responses divided by the number of reinforced responses.
The difference is of no significance for the present discussion
since both definitions imply a linear relation with zero intercept between absolute rate of responding and absolute rate of
reinforcement.

RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE STRENGTH OF RESPONSE

600 0O

cr

/H

ERRNSTEIN (1955)

soo 0

0
I

r 400(

w 300 0
z

C,,

w
cr 20040

10040

CLARK (1958)

0 20 40 60 80 oo 120

WILSON

160

'

200

240

280

REINFORCEMENTS

PER

HOUR

(1954)

320

360

Fig. 5. Data from previous experiments replotted to show

rate of responding as a function of frequency of reinforcement.

ours is in the character of the switching response.

Switching required a peck on a second key in Findley's
experiment, whereas in ours the pigeon had only to
move over. In the present experiment, the discriminative stimuli for both schedules were concurrently visible; in Findley's, only one was present at a time, but
the other was always available via a switching response.
Figure 6 shows the relation between absolute rate of
responding and absolute frequency of reinforcement
obtained by Findley. Findley did not keep the total
frequency of reinforcement constant as he varied the
average inter-reinforcement interval associated with the
two colors. Pigeons 5 and 6 had a constant value of
6 minutes in one color, and values ranging from 2 to
20 minutes in the other. The graphs are for the varying component. Responding in the other component
was not, however, constant. Reynolds (1961) has demonstrated a similar kind of interaction in an ordinary
multiple schedule. For Pigeons 2 and 4, the schedules
were varied in both components. Only for Pigeon 5
does the function appear linear with an intercept of
zero. For the three other pigeons, the pattern was the
same as in Fig. 5: The relation is either concave downwards or linear with an intercept greater than zero.
Our results suggest that a relative-frequency function
with a slope of less than 1.0 over part of the range
would have been obtained if it were not for the COD.
The precise correspondence between relative frequency
of responding and relative frequency of reinforcement
broke down when the COD was omitted. When the
relative-frequency relationship has a slope of less than
1.0, then the absolute-frequency relationship must

271

either be concave downwards or linear with a positive

intercept. Thus, the present experiment shows excellent
matching, on the one hand, and atypical absolute rate
functions, on the other, probablybecause of the COD.
It remains to be explained why the COD has the effect
of bringing the empirical points closer to the perfectmatching function. The data in Fig. 4 show that the
COD greatly reduces the frequency of alternation between the two keys. Without the COD, switching is
reinforced by the occasions when, the first peck to a
key produces food; with the COD, these occasions
never occur. In a sense, then, switching is a third
operant in the situation and is extinguished by the
COD. The abundance of switching with no COD
would tend to make the frequency of responding to the
two keys more nearly equal than they would be if
switching were not being reinforced. The reduction of
switching by the COD probably does not, however, explain why the absolute rate of responding in the present
experiment follows the simple linear function. At best,
one would expect the absolute rate to behave the way it
does in single-key experiments. Single-key experiments,
including Findley's version of the concurrent schedule,
yield functions between absolute rate of responding and
absolute frequency of reinforcement that predict nonmatching functions between relative frequency of responding and relative frequency of reinforcement. A
way of characterizing this finding is to say that in the
single-key situation, the animal responds too much at
the low frequencies of reinforcement or too little at the
high. Thus, the curves in Fig. 5 and 6 have intercepts
greater than zero or are concave downwards. The same
would apparently have been true in the present experi-

6000 -

5000

LU
0 4000
LUJ

Cr)

(I)

RI-

3000

al.
C'-)

LUJ 2000 _

a:

1000

L
o

20
l0
REINFORCEMENTS PER

30

HOUR

Fig. 6. Data from Findley's experiment (1958) replotted to

show rate of responding as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Numbers on curves refer to individual subjects

(pigeons).

272

R. J. HERRNSTEIN

ment had it not been for the COD. Why the COD has
this effect is intuitively, if not scientifically, obvious.
With a COD, two things are likely to happen; both
follow from the fact that once the animal has switched
to a key, it is likely to stay there for at least the duration of the COD. First of all, if the tendency to respond to a key is low, then the COD will probably
push the tendency even lower because switching to the
key calls for not one but a number of responses. Second, if the tendency is high, then the total number of
pecks to the key will probably be increased because
each switch to the key guarantees a number of responses. These presumed effects would change a function that is concave downwards or linear with a positive intercept toward a function that is linear with an
intercept of zero. As an analogy, separating the two
keys spatially may have effects similar to those of the
COD. If the two keys were far apart, the animal would
probably be less likely to go to the less lucrative key
than if only a small distance were involved, and responding to the more lucrative key would be increased.
A COD whose duration is longer than the 1.5 seconds
used here might give a matching function with a slope
greater than 1.0 and absolute-rate functions that are
concave upwards or linear with intercepts less than
zero.
The suggestion of the present discussion is that the
surprisingly precise correspondence between relative
frequency of responding and relative frequency of reinforcement arises from the function relating absolute frequency of responding and absolute frequency of reinforcement. When this function is Jinear -with1an
intercept of zero, matching is found. In singk-k4y
situations, this linear relation is not obtained; and iLis
also not obtained under concurrent schedules unless
some additional procedural factor reduces the pigeon's
tendency to over-respond at low frequencies of reinforcement and under-respond at high. The COD is
such a procedural factor; but others, such as distance
between keys or effort involved in the response, may
also be satisfactory. The duration of the COD may or
may not be critical in the effect it has on the slope of
the relative-frequency function. If a broad range of
durations of the COD all give approximately perfect
riatching, then it seems correct to say that the concurrent procedure is a good one for studying absolute,

as well as relative, strength of responding. In singlekey situations, the rate of responding is not very sensitive to frequency of reinforcement. This insensitivity
probably weakens our interest in the concept of strength
of response. It may be that the concept can be given
significant empirical support in multiple-key situations.
SUMMARY

A two-key, concurrent procedure involving a

variable-interval schedule on each key was used. The
value of the mean interval on each key was varied over
a range from 1.5 to 9 minutes, but the total frequency
of reinforcement for the two keys taken together was
held constant. The pigeon was penalized for alternating
in response between the two keys by making reinforcement impossible for 1.5 seconds after every alternation.
It was found that the relative frequency of responding
on a given key closely approximated the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key.
REFERENCES

Clark, F. C. The effect of deprivation and frequency of reinforcement on variable-interval responding. J. exp. Anal.
Behav., 1958, 1, 221-228.
Ferster, C. B., and Skinner, B. F. Schedules of reinforcement.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.
Findley, J. D. Preference and switching under concurrent
scheduling. J. exp. Anal. Behav., 1958,1, 123-144.
Herrnstein, R. J. Behavioral consequences of the removal of
a discriminative stimulus associated with variable-interval
reinforcement.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Harvard Univer., 1955.
Herrnstein, R. J. Some factors influencing behavior in a tworesponse situation. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1958, 21,
35-45.
Reynolds, G. S. Relativity of response rate and reinforcement
frequency in a multiple schedule. J. exp. Anal. Behav.,
1961, 2, 179-184.
Skinner, B. F. The behavior of organisms. New York: D.
Appleton Century Co., 1938.
Wilson, M. P. Periodic reinforcement interval and number of
periodic reinforcements as parameters of response
strength. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1954, 47, 51-56.
Received November 14, 1960.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of

frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4,
267-274.

Mtodo

Sujetos

Los sujetos experimentales fueron 3 palomas macho adultas experimentalmente

ingenuas y mantenidas al 80% de su peso ad libitum.

Aparatos

Se us una cmara experimental para el condicionamiento de palomas con dos

teclas de respuesta.

Procedimiento

El entrenamiento previo dur dos sesiones con 60 reforzadores cada una. Durante
estas sesiones se reforzaba un picotazo a la tecla slo cuando el reforzador previo se
haba conseguido por responder a la otra tecla. Con este procedimiento se consegua
rpidamente un patrn de alternancia casi perfecto. La tecla izquierda siempre se
ilumin de rojo y la derecha siempre de blanco.

Durante el experimento, responder a las teclas fue reforzado con un programa de

intervalo variable (IV). El programa para una tecla fue independiente del programa para
la otra. As, en un momento dado, el reforzador poda estar disponible en ambas teclas,
en una, en la otra o en ninguna. Una respuesta reforzada en una tecla no tena efecto
sobre el programa que funcionaba para la otra tecla.

La principal variable independiente fue el valor del programa de IV utilizado en

cada tecla. Los pares de valores usados fueron: IV 3-min IV 3-min; IV 2.25-min IV 4.5min; IV 1.8-min IV 9-min; IV 1.5-min Extincin.

Durante la mayor parte del experimento las palomas fueron penalizadas por
cambiar el picoteo constantemente de una tecla a la otra. Cada vez que se picaba a una
tecla y luego a la otra, el reforzador dejaba de estar disponible durante 1.5 segundos.
Esto es lo que se llama demora por el cambio de 1.5 seg (abreviadamente DPC1).

La secuencia de pares de valores de los programas de IV y el nmero de sesiones

para cada par de valores se muestra en la Tabla 1. La Tecla A es la roja izquierda y la
Tecla B es la blanca derecha. Tambin se indica si la DPC estuvo presente o no. Las
sesiones terminaban despus de 60 reforzadores.

Tabla 1

Resultados

La Figura 1 muestra la frecuencia relativa con la que la paloma picoteaba la Tecla

A en funcin de la frecuencia relativa con la que era reforzada en esa tecla. Cada punto
de la grfica es una media de las ltimas cinco sesiones bajo un par dado de valores de
los programas de IV. La DPC operaba en todas estas sesiones; los resultados sin DPC se
vern ms tarde. Los valores de los ejes de ordenadas y abscisas se calcularon con
mtodos similares. El nmero de respuestas (ordenadas) o de reforzadores (abscisas) se
divida por el nmero total de respuestas o de reforzadores, respectivamente. Para hacer
este cmputo se usaron las cinco ltimas sesiones.

Figura 1

La lnea diagonal con valor de 1.0 en la Figura 1 muestra la funcin que se

obtendra si la frecuencia relativa de respuesta fuera exactamente igual a la frecuencia
relativa de reforzamiento. Los valores empricos se aproximan a esta funcin terica
con una discrepancia mxima del 8%.
1

La Demora Por el Cambio es un procedimiento que se superpone al programa de

reforzamiento en curso, y por el que no se refuerza la respuesta de cambio durante un
tiempo (1,5 segundos en el caso del presente experimento). Dado que se utilizan
programas de IV, el cambio puede coincidir con la disponibilidad de reforzamiento. De
no utilizar la contingencia DPC se podra reforzar indirectamente la conducta de
alternancia.

En la Figura 2 se muestra la tasa absoluta de respuesta en cada tecla. En la grfica

aparecen respuestas por hora y reforzadores por hora para cada tecla por separado en las
dos palomas (231 y 055) que fueron expuestas a un mayor rango de combinaciones de
programas de reforzamiento. En las Figuras 1 y 2 aparecen datos de las mismas
sesiones. Con una excepcin (Paloma 055, Tecla A, con 40 reforzadores por hora) los
puntos de la Figura 2 son una funcin lineal que pasa a travs del origen. Esta relacin
entre la tasa absoluta de respuesta y la tasa absoluta de reforzamiento es la ms simple
que sea compatible con la funcin de frecuencia relativa presentada en la Figura 1.

Figura 2

El nmero de veces que una paloma cambiaba de tecla dependa de la diferencia de

frecuencia de reforzamiento entre las teclas. La Figura 3 muestra esta relacin para las
tres palomas. El eje de abscisas es la diferencia, en valores absolutos, entre el porcentaje
de reforzadores totales en una tecla y la otra. As, cuando las dos teclas tenan la misma
frecuencia relativa de reforzamiento, el valor de la abscisa es cero; mientras que cuando
las respuestas a la Tecla B no se reforzaron (extincin), el valor es 100. El eje de
ordenadas es el nmero medio de veces que la paloma cambia de la Tecla A a la B, o
viceversa. Los datos de los valores del eje de abscisas en la Figura 3 son menos
consistentes que los de las Figuras 1 y 2, pero la frecuencia de cambios entre las teclas
claramente disminuye cuando los programas de reforzamiento asociados a cada tecla
presentan importantes diferencias en cuanto a frecuencia de reforzamiento.

Figura 3

La relacin mostrada en la Figura 3 se encuentra slo cuando opera la DPC. La

Figura 4 muestra la frecuencia de cambios con y sin DPC cuando la frecuencia de
reforzamiento estuvo igual o desigualmente distribuida entre ambas teclas. Los datos de
esta figura son claros. La DPC reduce marcadamente la frecuencia de cambios entre las
teclas. La distribucin desigual de frecuencia de reforzamiento en las dos teclas reduce
los cambios slo cuando la DPC estuvo presente.

Figura 4

La DPC tambin parece jugar un importante papel en la relacin mostrada en la

Figura 1, es decir, en la tendencia a igualar la frecuencia relativa de respuesta con la
frecuencia relativa de reforzamiento. Las Palomas 055 y 641 fueron expuestas a
procedimientos en los que la DPC estuvo ausente y la frecuencia relativa de
reforzamiento para la Tecla A fue del 66%. Las frecuencias relativas de respuesta para
la Tecla A fueron del 50% y del 56%, respectivamente en las dos palomas. En ambos
casos se separaban de los resultados de igualacin obtenidos cuando la DPC estuvo
presente (vase la Figura 1).