The cross-point between double demand curves, obtained by concurrent schedules of reinforcement, provides a measure of resource preference. Studies using operant conditioning have shown that animals may work for unused rewards and work even when not reinforced, which indicates that pressing a lever may be rewarding in itself. Animals actively seek stimulation when given the opportunity. It is likely that pressing is particularly rewarding for animals housed under barren conditions, and that they will perform more pressing than animals from stimulating environments. This constitutes a methodological problem if the cross-point is affected. The present experiment investigated if the double demand curve method is sensitive to differences in housing conditions. We tested if rats performed more pressing when housed under barren compared to stimulating conditions, and if cross-points were ultimately affected. The experiment also aimed at inspecting the shape of double demand curves. Sixteen rats worked concurrently for distilled water on one lever and quinine water on another. When workload was high for distilled water it was low for quinine water and vice versa. The rats were subjected alternately to four housing treatments: non-enriched (NE), object enriched (OE), social enriched (SE), and object and social enriched (OSE). Results showed a significant interaction between housing treatment and type of water ( P = 0.04). The distilled water lever received significantly more pressing than the quinine water lever, and the amount of pressing at the distilled water lever differed significantly between housing treatments. Rats were expected to press most when NE and least when OSE housed, but they pressed most when SE and least when OE housed. The double demand curves were s-shaped, which confirms findings from a previous experiment. The cross-point was significantly higher for OSE than NE ( P < 0.05), i.e. preference for distilled water was higher when rats were OSE housed than when they were NE housed. Results indicate that housing conditions may exert some effect on both the amount of pressing performed and cross-points, but results on pressing and cross-points did not agree. In contrast to expectation, impoverished conditions did not cause rats to press more. Thus, more studies are needed before any final conclusions about sensitivity of the double demand curve method towards differences in housing conditions can be drawn.
Read full abstract