Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1996 Jul;66(1):63–73. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.66-63

Choice with certain and uncertain reinforcers in an adjusting-delay procedure.

J E Mazur 1
PMCID: PMC1284553  PMID: 8755700

Abstract

A discrete-trials adjusting-delay procedure was used to investigate the conditions under which pigeons might show a preference for partial reinforcement over 100% reinforcement, an effect reported in a number of previous experiments. A peck on a red key always led to a delay with red houselights and then food. In each condition, the duration of the red-houselight delay was adjusted to estimate an indifference point. In 100% reinforcement conditions, a peck on a green key always led to a delay with green houselights and then food. In partial-reinforcement conditions, a peck on the green key led either to the green houselights and food or to white houselights and no food. In some phases of the experiment, statistically significant preference for partial reinforcement over 100% reinforcement was found, but this effect was observed in only about half of the pigeons. The effect was largely eliminated when variability in the delay stimulus colors was equated for 50% reinforcement conditions and 100% reinforcement conditions. Idiosyncratic preferences for certain colors or for stimulus variability may be at least partially responsible for the effect.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (222.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Belke T. W., Spetch M. L. Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Nov;62(3):353–366. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dunn R., Spetch M. L. Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Mar;53(2):201–218. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fantino E. Choice and rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):723–730. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fantino E., Dunn R., Meck W. Percentage reinforcement and choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Nov;32(3):335–340. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kendall S. B. Preference for intermittent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):463–473. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mazur J. E. Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: effects of delay and conditioned reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jan;55(1):63–77. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mazur J. E. Conditioned reinforcement and choice with delayed and uncertain primary reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Mar;63(2):139–150. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mazur J. E. Fixed and variable ratios and delays: further tests of an equivalence rule. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1986 Apr;12(2):116–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mazur J. E. Probability and delay of reinforcement as factors in discrete-trial choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):341–351. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mazur J. E., Romano A. Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Nov;58(3):513–525. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mazur J. E. Theories of probabilistic reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Jan;51(1):87–99. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mulvaney D. E., Dinsmoor J. A., Jwaideh A. R., Hughes L. H. Punishment of observing by the negative discriminative stimulus. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):37–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Spetch M. L., Belke T. W., Barnet R. C., Dunn R., Pierce W. D. Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal-link length. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Mar;53(2):219–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. WYCKOFF L. B., Jr The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. Psychol Rev. 1952 Nov;59(6):431–442. doi: 10.1037/h0053932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES