PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

Psychology 203 Experimental Lab Report

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

Introduction
Our experiment aims to measure whether continuous or partial reinforcement
produces greater resistance to change, and hence, whether either schedule produces
stronger relapse.
Continuous reinforcement is where a reinforcer follows every single appropriate
response made. Partial reinforcement, on the other hand, only deals out a reinforcer after
a certain number of responses have been made, or after a certain time has passed since
the last reinforcer was provided (still requiring a response to be made to receive the
reinforcer).
These two differing schedules of reinforcement will imply a different rate of
reinforcement for each schedule. The rate of reinforcement affects the amount of
responses a subject will have to emit in order to receive a reinforcer (Grace & Nevin,
2000).
By definition, the continuous reinforcement schedule, will have a greater rate of
reinforcement than the partial reinforcement schedule, as the former requires only one
response per reinforcer, where, the latter, requires multiple reponses for a single reinforcer.
Rate of reinforcement has a significant effect on rate of extinction. This rate describes how
quickly an animal will inhibit their responses once reinforcers are no longer being provided
(Grace & Nevin, 2000).
Relapse, in today's society, is commonly associated with people, such as those
suffering from drug addiction, who have attempted to relieve themselves of their addiction,
only to find that they are unable to resist their addiction in a given circumstance.
In behavioral psychology, relapse is often followed by the process of extinction. The rate of
extinction, as well as amount of relapse, are tied together by a common factor resistance
to extinction.
Resistance to extinction involves the Behavioural Momentum Theory (Nevin &

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

Grace, 2000). This theory describes how some behaviours are maintained more strongly
than others. For example, a subject, given two near identical options of response, that
differs only by the amount of reinforcers provided, will respond more persistently in the
way that provides more reinforcers.
The rich schedule, referring to the schedule offering a greater amount of reinforcers,
will produce a much greater rate of reinforcement from a subject (Podlesnik & Shahan,
2009). When faced with extinction, the subject's behaviour will be maintained much more
persistently in the rich schedule. This infers that a greater rate of reinforcement results in a
greater resistance to extinction, and thus will produce much more persistent behaviour.
This relates to the concept of relapse, where a subject, after facing a period of
extinction, will reingage the extinguished behaviour (Podlesnik & Shahan, 2009). As a
higher rate of reinforcement results in greater resistance to extinction, a greater resistance
to extinction results in a greater amount of relapse. This may be because a subject
exposed to higher rates of reinforcement might find emitting the behaviour a lot easier than
inhibiting that behaviour.
Podlesnik and Shahan (2009) conducted an experiment that sought to determine
the effects a greater rate of reinforcement had on relapse in conditioned pigeon behaviour.
Their experiment involved two identical Variable Interval schedules being presented in an
alternating manner but with one of the schedules including a Variable Time schedule (a
time that was much shorter than the VI schedules) that offered response independent
reinforcement. In other words, one schedule would provide the pigeon with a reinforcer
following a response after a variable time since the last reinforcer, where as the other
would provide the same as well as a reinforcer every time a fixed time period passed,
regardless of whether or not a response was made. Because two Variable Interval
schedules are being used, the response rates are going to be of a similar pattern.
The difference in our experiment is that rather than presenting two identical

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

reinforcement schedules, with a bonus schedule for the rich component, we are presenting
two different reinforcement schedules altogether. This means a pigeon must always
perform a response in order to receive a reinforcer. Additionally, since we are using a
Fixed Response and a Variable Interval schedule, the difference in rate of response will be
much more apparent in our experiment.
Because we are comparing a continuous reinforcement schedule with an
intermittent reinforcement schedule, we must also consider how the Partial Reinforcement
Extinction Effect (PREE) might influence extinction and relapse. The PREE describes how
the rate of extinction is lower when the original response was reinforced with an
intermittent reinforcement schedule as opposed to a continuous reinforcement schedule
(Nevin, 2012). Thus our experiment looks closely at both rate of reinforcement as well as
the type of reinforcement schedule and how they affect resistance to extinction and
relapse.
The purpose of our study seeks to find whether a continuous schedule of
reinforcement or a partial schedule of reinforcement produces greater resistance to
extinction and whether or not that schedule also produces the greatest amount of relapse
in given conditions.
To achieve this, we will first have the pigeons undergo baseline training, where they
will be offered two schedules of reinforcement in an alternating manner, described as a
two-component multiple schedule. The two components are a fixed response schedule,
where the reinforcer is presented after each response, and a variable interval schedule.
This training is followed by extinction, where no reinforcers will be provided for any
responses made. Once the rate of response has fallen to an appropriate level, in relation
to the rates established in baseline training, reinstatement will reoccur. In this condition,
reinforcers will be provided only for the first presentation of the two reinforcement
components.

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

Method
Subjects
This experiment involved 12 domestic pigeons (Columba livia domestica), that were
labelled by group number (lettered, A to D) and by subject number (numbered, 1-3). For
example, the first group of pigeons are labelled: A1, A2, A3. Only one group of three
pigeons were performing the experiment at a time. The pigeons were kept at a bodyweight
that is roughly 85% of their free feeding weight ( 5g). The pigeons were weighed, and
food amounts adjusted if required, after every experimental session to ensure this weight
stayed roughly constant throughout the experiments. The food they were provided with
was mixed grain. The pigeons were also provided with a replenishing amount of water and
grit, within the cages they lived in between experimental sessions.
Apparatus
For the experiment, the birds were placed in an experimental chamber. The
chamber measured 300mm in height, 250mm in width, 295mm in depth. The response
panel contained three keys, made of 25mm diameter plastic discs, where one key was
positioned 190mm up from the floor of the panel, in the lateral centre, and the other two
keys were placed 60mm to either side, at the same height. The response panel also
contained a magazine aperture that was rectangular in shape, measuring 50mm in height,
70mm in width, and 50mm in depth, where the bottom edge of the magazine is parallel
and located 40mm from the floor of the chamber. A hopper, filled with grain was positioned
behind the magazine and raised during reinforcement. During this time, the magazine
aperture was lit up.
The front and back walls of the experimental chamber were made from Perspex,
and sheet metal was used for the other walls. The floor consisted of iron bars. There was a
houselight located near the roof on the back wall. There was a separate compartment on
one side of the chamber that housed a camera, used to observe activity within the

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

chamber from outside.

The room next to the experimental chamber containing room, included a computer
running a program, Med-Pc IV, which controlled all experimental events and recorded all
data from responses made in the experimental chambers.
Procedure
The pigeons (only 3 per experimental session) were first brought from their cages,
by people, to the experimental chambers. The room they were taken from houses all 12
pigeons that were participating in the experiment.
This experiment involved three conditions: Baseline training, extinction and
reinstatement. Baseline training involved the pigeons being trained under a twocomponent multiple schedule. The two schedules were an FR(1) schedule, for continuous
reinforcement, and a VI(10s) schedule, for partial reinforcement. Each schedule had their
own associated key colours, where red and yellow represented the Fixed Ratio schedule,
and white and green represented the variable interval schedule.
After 15 sessions of baseline training, extinction conditions were run. Under this
condition, the pigeons received no reinforcers for responses. The extinction condition went
on for 5 sessions or until responding fell below 10% of their baseline level response rate,
whichever took longer.
Reinstatement then followed. The two components were to be presented again and
3 free foods were be provided in the very first presentation of the two components, after
which, responses did not produce reinforcers. This was to elicit a reinstatement response.
This condition continued for 5 sessions or until responding fell below 10% of their baseline
level response rate, whichever took longer.
The pigeons underwent all conditions twice. The length of every session consisted
of 20 components across all conditions.

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

Results
The average rate of response for the experimental group was significantly higher in
the Variable Interval schedule than the Fixed Ratio schedule (Figure 1). Conversely, the
average reinforcers per minute was higher in the Fixed Ratio schedule (Figure 2).

Figure 1. A bar graph comparing the group averages for the responses per minute emitted
from the Fixed Ratio schedule and Variable Interval schedule. The response rate is higher
for the Variable Interval schedule.

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

Figure 2. A bar graph comparing the group averages for the reinforcers per minute
provided by the Fixed Ratio schedule and Variable Interval schedule. Here, the Fixed Ratio
schedule provides much more reinforcers per minute than the Variable Interval schedule.

The results of the extinction and reinstatement sessions did not show much
correlation between graphs (Figure 3). The extinction results indicated that the Variable
Interval had much steeper decline towards than the Fixed Ratio schedule. There was also
a spike in the proportion baseline for the first extinction session of the Fixed Ratio
schedule. The proportion baselines for the reinstatement sessions remained somewhat
even for both schedules, with the Variable Interval schedule remaining slightly higher.

Group Average

1.4

FR 1Column C
VI 10
s
Column
B

1
0.8
0.6
0.4

RST 5

RST 4

RST 3

RST 2

RST 1

EXT 5

EXT 4

EXT 3

EXT 2

EXT 1

0.2
BL

Proportion Baseline

1.2

Session Number

Figure 3. A line graph showing comparitive proportions of baseline over the extinction
sessions and reinstatement sessions, between the Fixed Ratio schedule and the Variable
interval schedule. Concerning the extinction schedule, it appears that the Variable Interval
schedule shows faster initial decline. The reinstatement lines have the Variable Interval
schedule maintaining a higher proportion of baseline throughout.

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

Discussion
The data obtained from baseline showed that the Variable Interval schedule
maintained a greater rate of responding and a lower reinforcement rate when compared
with the Fixed Ratio schedule. The reinstatement results indicate that the Variable Interval
schedule maintained a higher proportion of baseline in reinstatement, however, the results
from extinction show the Variable Interval having a faster decline in proportion baseline as
opposed to the Fixed Ratio schedule.
The results from baseline aren't anything unexpected, as the Fixed Ratio schedule,
being a continuous reinforcement schedule produced a higher reinforcement rate. This ties
in with the fact that the FR 1 also produced the lower rate of response, which fits well with
the higher reinforcement rate (Grace & Nevin, 2000). The resulting effect of this lower
response rate is clear in the relapse results, where the Variable Interval schedule, having
the higher rate of response, maintained a higher rate of baseline in relapse than the Fixed
Ratio schedule. This implies that baseline response rate has a direct correlation with the
rate of relapse. However, the results of the extinction sessions don't show a very strong
correlation with rate of response. Since the Variable Interval schedule declined faster, it
would imply that the higher rate of response was not maintained more persistently as
would be the case in Behavioral Momentum Theory (Nevin & Grace, 2000). Another
interesting feature from the extinction results, is the spike of behaviour in the first extinction
session of the Fixed Ratio schedule. This may have been a result of the pigeons believing
there was something wrong with the stimulus which provided reinforcement for the FR 1
schedule and hence, kept pecking, expecting that a reinforcer was bound to be provided
eventually.
One possible flaw in our experimental design is that we had no control over the
actual reinforcement rate. By not controlling this, we have more than one independent
variable in our experiment. These variables are the different response schedule types (The

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

10

FR 1 and VI 10) and the differing reinforcement rates as a result of these schedules. Thus,
it makes the results of our experiment harder to interpret as we have to account for two
possible variables that may affect the response rates, extinction and relapse.
The findings that less resistance to extinction was followed by a greater rate of
relapse is opposite to the extinction results found by Podlesnik and Shahan's (2010)
experiment. Their experiment, using only Variable Interval schedules, found that a greater
rate of relapse followed from a greater resistance to extinction. Nor can our results be
attributed to the Partial Reinforcement Extinction effect, as the behaviour under the
intermittent schedule extinguished slower than in the continuous schedule. However,
despite there being no clarity in terms of extinction, the relapse results alone indicate some
correlation with the Podlesnik and Shahan's (2010) experiment. The Variable Interval
schedule, which maintained a higher rate of relapse than the Fixed Ratio, was also the
schedule that produced a higher rate of response, and this is in accordance with the
Behavioral Momentum Theory (Nevin & Grace, 2000), as the response momentum
seemed to have been maintained in the reinstatement sessions.
An implication that can be conveyed from our experiment is that when comparing
behaviours produced under different schedules of reinforcement, the behaviour from the
continuous schedule will be maintained more weakly in reinstatement conditions rather
than behaviour trained in an intermittent schedule of reinforcement.
A possible aspect to now test would be the effect of reinforcer rate on the Partial
Reinforcement Extinction Effect and how that then affects extinction and relapse. This
would be like our experiment, except we would be directly controlling reinforcer rate.
This experiment has seemingly confirmed the Behavioural Momentum Theory's
effect in relapse but raises questions in how differing response schedules and differing
response rates affect extinction.

PSYCH203 EXPERIMENTAL LAB REPORT

11

References
Nevin, John A., and Randolph C. Grace. "Behavioral momentum and the Law of Effect."
Behavioral and Brain Sciences23.1 (2000): 73-90. Cambridge Journals. Web. 24
Aug. 2014.
Nevin, John A.. "Resistance to extinction and behavioral momentum." Behavioural
Processes 90.1 (2012): 89-97. NCBI. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.
Podlesnik, Christopher A., and Timothy A. Shahan. "Extinction, relapse, and behavioral
momentum." Behavioural Processes 84.1 (2010): 400-411. Springer Link. Web. 24
Aug. 2014.