BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies report that drug use and social contact mutually influence the reinforcing effects of one another. Most of these studies have used same-sex dyads exclusively, and the role of factors related to biological sex and hormonal fluctuations are not well understood.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the reinforcing effects of cocaine and social contact with an opposite-sex partner in male and female rats, and how these effects are modulated by ovarian hormones.
METHODS: Male and female rats were trained in a nonexclusive choice procedure in which cocaine and social contact with an opposite-sex partner were simultaneously available on concurrent progressive ratio schedules of reinforcement. To examine the effects of ovarian hormones related to estrous cycling, Experiment 1 used naturally cycling, gonadally intact females, whereas Experiment 2 used ovariectomized females, and estrus was artificially induced with exogenous hormones.
RESULTS: In both experiments, cocaine and social contact functioned as robust reinforcers, and there were no significant effects of biological sex or estrus status of the females. The positive reinforcing effects of both cocaine and social contact increased as a function of cocaine dose, indicating that contingent cocaine administration increases the reinforcing effects of social contact.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that cocaine use among opposite-sex partners may enhance factors that contribute to social bonding.

Studies have shown that the multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment is an effective assessment format for identifying preferred items. However, it is possible that factors other than reinforcer quality might influence selections by some individuals when the MSWO array consists of edible items. The validity of the MSWO results was evaluated by comparing items identified as most and least preferred by the MSWO assessment in a concurrent-schedule (CS) format. Varying edible items were used in each study. The MSWO format accurately identified the higher quality edible item for most participants across studies (76%); however, the MSWO format did not predict the highest quality edible item in the CS assessment for 20% to 30% of participants in each study.

When reinforcer availability on one alternative of a concurrent schedule is signaled by a discriminative stimulus, responding on that alternative decreases. We investigated how the correlation between signal presentation and reinforcement (signal reliability) affects choice between signaled and unsignaled alternatives. Six pigeons responded in a concurrent schedule, in which reinforcers on one alternative were signaled by a key-color change. Across conditions, the probability of reinforcement following signal presentation varied (the probability in its absence was the complement). As signal reliability increased, response rates and latencies following signal onset on the signaled alternative decreased, whereas responding on the unsignaled alternative remained unchanged. Because the signal did not alter overall reinforcer rates, these findings are consistent with matching theories and research suggesting that responding on one alternative of a concurrent schedule depends on reinforcer, but not response, rates on other alternatives. However, these findings are inconsistent with others demonstrating concomitant changes in responding on signaled and unsignaled alternatives. We consider whether a response-competition account of concurrent performance can explain these discrepancies, and suggest avenues for future studies to investigate the mechanisms underlying effects of signaled reinforcement in concurrent schedules.

This study examined strategies designed to increase the rate of targeted, low-probability mands in a concurrent operant environment. We examined the effects of schedule manipulations, prompt manipulations, motivating operation manipulations, and combined behavioral process manipulations. Increases in target mands were produced for all 8 participants. Schedule manipulations were effective in producing increased rates of targeted mands for 3 of 8 participants, whereas prompt manipulations were effective for 4 of 8 participants. Motivating operation manipulations were effective in producing increased rates of targeted mands for 2 of 8 participants and combined behavioral process manipulations were effective for the single participant exposed to the combination.

In concurrent schedules with a changeover delay (COD), choice often strongly favours the just-reinforced alternative immediately after a reinforcer delivery. These \'preference pulses\' may be caused by a change in reinforcer availability created by the COD, and/or because the COD decreases the overall probability of switching. We investigated which explanation better accounts for preference pulses by arranging concurrent schedules that allowed us to separate the COD\'s effects on reinforcer availability from its effects on the probability of switching. When the reinforcer ratio was 1:1, pulses were inconsistently accompanied by changes in reinforcer availability, but consistently accompanied by longer visits. These pulses appeared to be related only to the decreased probability of switching caused by the COD, providing the first evidence of pulses after reinforcers caused by the probability of switching alone. When the reinforcer ratio was 1:5 or 5:1; preference pulses were accompanied by changes in reinforcer availability and by longer visits. These pulses appeared to be related to the COD\'s effects on reinforcer availability, although a small portion appeared to be related to low probability of switching. These findings suggest that the COD affects preference pulses by both decreasing the probability of switching and creating a change in reinforcer availability.

In concurrent schedules, reinforcers are often followed by a brief period of heightened preference for the just-productive alternative. Such \'preference pulses\' may reflect local effects of reinforcers on choice. However, similar pulses may occur after nonreinforced responses, suggesting that pulses after reinforcers are partly unrelated to reinforcer effects. McLean, Grace, Pitts, and Hughes (2014) recommended subtracting preference pulses after responses from preference pulses after reinforcers, to construct residual pulses that represent only reinforcer effects. Thus, a reanalysis of existing choice data is necessary to determine whether changes in choice after reinforcers in previous experiments were actually related to reinforcers. In the present paper, we reanalyzed data from choice experiments in which reinforcers served different functions. We compared local choice, mean visit length, and visit-length distributions after reinforcers and after nonreinforced responses. Our reanalysis demonstrated the utility of McLean et al.\'s preference-pulse correction for determining the effects of reinforcers on choice. However, visit analyses revealed that residual pulses may not accurately represent reinforcer effects, and reinforcer effects were clearer in visit analyses than in local-choice analyses. The best way to determine the effects of reinforcers on choice may be to conduct visit analyses in addition to local-choice analyses.

Timeouts are sometimes used in applied settings to reduce target responses, and in some circumstances delays are unavoidably imposed between the onset of a timeout and the offset of the response that produces it. The present study examined the effects of signaled and unsignaled timeouts in rats exposed to concurrent fixed-ratio 1 fixed-ratio 1 schedules of food delivery, where each response on one lever, the location of which changed across conditions, produced both food and a delayed 10-s timeout. Delays of 0 to 38 s were examined. Delayed timeouts often, but not always, substantially reduced the number of responses emitted on the lever that produced timeouts relative to the number emitted on the lever that did not produce timeouts. In general, greater sensitivity was observed to delayed timeouts when they were signaled. These results demonstrate that delayed timeouts, like other delayed consequences, can affect behavior, albeit less strongly than immediate consequences.

The baseline rate of a reinforced target response decreases with the availability of response-independent sources of alternative reinforcement; however, resistance to disruption and relapse increases. Because many behavioral treatments for problem behavior include response-dependent reinforcement of alternative behavior, the present study assessed whether response-dependent alternative reinforcement also decreases baseline response rates but increases resistance to extinction and relapse. We reinforced target responding at equal rates across two components of a multiple schedule with pigeons. We compared resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement of (1) a target response trained concurrently with a reinforced alternative response in one component with (2) a target response trained either concurrently or in separate components from the alternative response across conditions. Target response rates trained alone in baseline were higher but resistance to extinction and relapse via reinstatement tests were greater after training concurrently with the alternative response. In another assessment, training target and alternative responding together, but separating them during extinction and reinstatement tests, produced equal resistance to extinction and relapse. Together, these findings are consistent with behavioral momentum theory-operant response-reinforcer relations determined baseline response rates but Pavlovian stimulus-reinforcer relations established during training determined resistance to extinction and relapse. These findings imply that reinforcing alternative behavior to treat problem behavior could initially reduce rates but increase persistence.

The strengthening view of reinforcement attributes behavior change to changes in the response strength or the value of the reinforcer. In contrast, the shaping view explains behavior change as shaping different response units through differential reinforcement. In this paper, we evaluate how well these two views explain: (1) the response-rate difference between variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules that provide the same reinforcement rate; and (2) the phenomenon of matching in choice. The copyist model (Tanno and Silberberg, 2012) - a shaping-view account - can provided accurate predictions of these phenomena without a strengthening mechanism; however, the model has limitations. It cannot explain the relation between behavior change and stimulus control, reinforcer amount, and reinforcer quality. These relations seem easily explained by a strengthening view. Future work should be directed at a model which combine the strengths of these two types of accounts.

The present study assessed whether a pattern of responding that develops when choosing between two alternatives generalizes to novel choice tests when alternatives are presented in new combinations. Pigeons were trained on a two-component multiple schedule. In both components, a concurrent variable-interval (VI) 40-s VI 80-s schedule was used. The COD was 1 s in one component and 10 s in the other. The long COD produced consistently longer dwell times than the short COD did. Following training, subjects were presented with four types of probe-test components in which one alternative was drawn from the component with the short COD and one alternative was drawn from the component with the long COD. When the schedule values of the two alternatives were identical (VI 40 vs. VI 40 and VI 80 vs. VI 80), subjects preferred the alternative trained with the long COD (Ms = .78 and .61, respectively). Additionally, subjects preferred the VI 40-s alternative trained with the long COD to the VI 80-s alternative that was trained with the short COD (M = .85). Systematic preference was not observed when subjects were given a choice between the VI 40-s alternative that was trained with the short COD and the VI 80-s alternative that was trained with the long COD. These results demonstrate that a stimulus associated with a longer COD, and thus longer dwell times in baseline training, may be more preferred during probe tests than expected on the basis of the rate of primary reinforcement associated with that stimulus.