INCENTIVE PROCESSES AND THE PEAK SHIFT

Abstract

Intradimensional operant discrimination schedules were employed, which eliminated the covariation of response and reinforcement rates that are found on most operant baselines. In Phase 1, one keylight (S 1 ) controlled an increase in pigeons' treadle pressing, relative to another keylight (S 2 ), while being correlated with a decrease in frequency of reinforcement. In Phase 2 both treadle pressing and reinforcement increased in the presence of one keylight, relative to the second. In Phase 1 the relatively flat treadle‐press generalization gradients peaked at S 1 , whereas the peaks of those in Phase 2 were shifted from S 1 in a direction away from S 2 . It was postulated that these positive and negative stimulus‐reinforcement contingencies influence the likelihood of obtaining peak shift through the operation of a classically conditioned “central motive state.” How response‐reinforcement and stimulus‐reinforcement contingencies might contribute to the development of inhibitory effects of S 2 is discussed. Autoshaped key pecking also was produced by these procedures. During manipulations of stimuli, the gradients obtained for autoshaped key pecking were narrow and sharply peaked at the food‐correlated stimulus (S 2 ) in Phase 1. This failure to obtain peak shift for an elicited response suggests a difference in discriminative processes operating in classical and instrumental learning.