ASSOCIATIVE FACTORS UNDERLYING THE PIGEON'S KEY PECKING IN AUTO-SHAPING PROCEDURES

Key pecking in pigeons can be engendered by associating response-independent food presentations with illumination of a key. Specific pairings of key and food are not necessary for this phenomenon. Differential positive association between key and food (defined in terms of relative densities of reinf...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior Vol. 19; no. 2; pp. 225 - 232
Main Authors Gamzu, Elkan R., Williams, David R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.1973
Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Key pecking in pigeons can be engendered by associating response-independent food presentations with illumination of a key. Specific pairings of key and food are not necessary for this phenomenon. Differential positive association between key and food (defined in terms of relative densities of reinforcement), however, is necessary and sufficient to produce and maintain key pecking. Thus, the occurrence of key pecking in auto-shaping can be considered to depend on associative processes similar to classical conditioning. Consequently, auto-shaped pecking can be virtually eliminated by the addition of food presentations in the intertrial interval, thus removing the association between key and food. Initial exposure to random reinforcement, or reinforcement only in the absence of the key, results in lower rates of pecking in subsequent auto-shaping procedures.
Bibliography:This paper is based on a dissertation submitted by the first author to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Pennsylvania, 1971, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. The research was supported by Grant G14055 from the National Science Foundation. The authors thank N. Adler and R. L. Solomon for appraisal of an earlier version of the manuscript. We are grateful to Tom Allaway, Joe Bernheim, Barry Schwartz, Alan Silberberg, Harriet Williams, and Kit Zonana for their perceptive comments.
istex:8935DB3C9EF44EE2E156A11D76E36B9283D62CA8
ArticleID:JEAB3757
ark:/67375/WNG-NG5572TZ-Z
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-5002
1938-3711
DOI:10.1901/jeab.1973.19-225