Conceptualizing Fixed-Interval Praise Delivery

This article provides a conceptual framework for using fixed-interval praise delivery in the educational setting. Fixed-interval praise delivery can be conceptualized as an antecedent-based strategy that disrupts the natural behavior to contingency relationship in a four-term contingency model (Establishing operation–Antecedent–Behavior–Consequence). Historically, teachers are trained to deliver praise as a consequence-based practice (i.e., contingently). This article describes how teachers can also use praise on a fixed interval as an antecedent-based practice. When praise is delivered on a fixed-interval schedule, educators directly manipulate the level of praise delivered to maintain or increase appropriate student behavior. Using praise as an antecedent-based strategy has the potential to establish and maintain high-quality student–teacher relationships, which positively impacts student behavior. Practical, applied examples and discussion of fixed-interval praise delivery are provided.

Biasing Temporal Judgments in Rats, Pigeons, and Humans

Models of interval timing typically include a response threshold to account for temporal production. The present study sought to evaluate the dependent concurrent fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement as a tool for selectively isolating the response threshold in rats, pigeons, and humans. In this task, reinforcement is available either at one location after a short delay or at another location at a longer delay. Because the reinforced location is not signaled, subjects normally respond on the first location and, if reinforcement is not delivered, then switch to the second location. The latency to switch between locations served as the primary dependent measure. After training rats, pigeons, and humans with equal reinforcement magnitudes in the short and long delays, the magnitude of reinforcement was increased threefold on the long-delay location. Consistent with model predictions, this biasing procedure decreased estimates of the response threshold of rats and pigeons, but also reduced temporal control in these species and increased response-threshold estimates in humans. Human and pigeon performance also suggested a magnitude-induced increase in the speed of the internal clock. Collectively, these results suggest that differences in reinforcement magnitude between response alternatives appear to modulate the response threshold, but not selectively, and may provide guidance for better isolating response-threshold effects in humans.

The Reinforcement Magnitude of Flavored Stimulus Interferes with Omission Effects in Rats

Reinforcement omission effects (ROEs) have beeninterpreted as behavioral transient facilitation after nonreinforcement inducedby primary frustration, and/or behavioral transient inhibition afterreinforcement induced by demotivation or temporal control. According to frustrationtheory, the size of the ROEs should depend directly on the reinforcementmagnitude: the behavioral facilitation after thereinforcement omission of larger magnitude should be greater than that observedafter the reinforcement omission of smaller magnitude. However, studiesinvolving operant paradigms have presenteddifficulty to demonstrate this relationship. Thus, the present study aimed toclarify the relationship between reinforcement magnitude and ROEsmanipulating the magnitude linked to discriminative stimuli in a partialreinforcement fixed interval schedule. Rats were trained on a fixed-interval 12 s with limitedhold 6 s signaled schedule in which correct responses were always followed byone of two reinforcement magnitudes (0.5 and 0.05 ml of a 0.15% saccharinsolution). After acquisition of stable performance, the training was changedfrom 100% to 50% reinforcement schedules. The results showed that responserates were higher after omission than after reinforcement delivery. Besides,results showed that response rates were highest after the reinforcementomission of larger magnitude than of smaller magnitude. However, thefindings did not support the hypothesis that the reinforcement omission of largemagnitude induces greater behavioral facilitation than the reinforcementomission of smaller magnitude. The data were interpreted in terms of ROEsmultiple process behavioral facilitation after nonreinforcement and behavioraltransient inhibition after reinforcement.