Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1996 Nov;66(3):283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.66-283

Preference between variable-ratio and fixed-ratio schedules: local and extended relations.

D P Field 1, F Tonneau 1, W Ahearn 1, P N Hineline 1
PMCID: PMC1284572  PMID: 8921612

Abstract

Although it has repeatedly been demonstrated that pigeons, as well as other species, will often choose a variable schedule of reinforcement over an equivalent (or even richer) fixed schedule, the exact nature of that controlling relation has yet to be fully assessed. In this study pigeons were given repeated choices between concurrently available fixed-ratio and variable-ratio schedules. The fixed-ratio requirement (30 responses) was constant throughout the experiment, whereas the distribution of individual ratios making up the variable-ratio schedule changed across phases: The smallest and largest of these components were varied gradually, with the mean variable-ratio requirement constant at 60 responses. The birds' choices of the variable-ratio schedule tracked the size of the smallest variable-ratio component. A minimum variable-ratio component at or near 1 produced strong preference for the variable-ratio schedule, whereas increases in the minimum variable-ratio component resulted in reduced preference for the variable-ratio schedule. The birds' behavior was qualitatively consistent with Mazur's (1984) hyperbolic model of delayed reinforcement and could be described as approximate maximizing with respect to reinforcement value.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (268.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Baum W. M. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):231–242. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cicerone R. A. Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Mar;25(2):257–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Davison M. C. Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Mar;12(2):247–252. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davison M. C. Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules: number of component intervals. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Mar;17(2):169–176. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Davison M. Delay of reinforcers in a concurrent-chain schedule: An extension of the hyperbolic-decay model. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Sep;50(2):219–236. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Duncan B., Fantino E. Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jul;14(1):73–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Duncan B., Fantino E. Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jul;14(1):73–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fantino E. Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Jan;10(1):35–43. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grace Randolph C. Violations of transitivity: Implications for a theory of contextual choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):185–201. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Grossbard C. L., Mazur J. E. A comparison of delays and ratio requirements in self-control choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 May;45(3):305–315. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. HERRNSTEIN R. J. APERIODICITY AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Mar;7:179–182. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. HERRNSTEIN R. J. SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Jan;7:27–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hursh S. R., Fantino E. Relative delay of reinforcement and choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):437–450. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Killeen P. On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3):263–269. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Marr M. J. Behavior dynamics: One perspective. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):249–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Mazur J. E., Vaughan W., Jr Molar optimization versus delayed reinforcement as explanations of choice between fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Sep;48(2):251–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nevin J. A., Mandell C., Atak J. R. The analysis of behavioral momentum. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jan;39(1):49–59. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rider D. P. Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Mar;39(2):257–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Schlinger H., Blakely E., Kaczor T. Pausing under variable-ratio schedules: Interaction of reinforcer magnitude, variable-ratio size, and lowest ratio. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Jan;53(1):133–139. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sherman J. A., Thomas J. R. Some factors controlling preference between fixed-ratio and variable-ratio schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):689–702. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Shull R. L. Choice between fixed-interval schedules: Graded versus step-like choice functions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jul;58(1):37–45. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vaughan W. Choice: A local analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):383–405. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vaughan W. Melioration, matching, and maximization. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):141–149. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [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