Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2000 May;73(3):241–260. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-241

Human performance on negative slope schedules of points exchangeable for money: a failure of molar maximization.

E A Jacobs 1, T D Hackenberg 1
PMCID: PMC1284775  PMID: 10866350

Abstract

Panel pressing was generated and maintained in 5 adult humans by schedules of points exchangeable for money. Following exposure to a variable-interval 30-s schedule and to a linear variable-interval 30-s schedule (which permitted points to accumulate in an unseen "store" in the absence of responding), subjects were exposed to a series of conditions with a point-subtraction contingency arranged conjointly with the linear variable-interval schedule. Specifically, points were added to the store according to the linear-variable interval 30-s schedule and were subtracted from the store according to a ratio schedule. Ratio value varied across conditions and was determined individually for each subject such that the subtraction contingency would result in an approximately 50% reduction in the rate of point delivery. Conditions that included the subtraction contingency were termed negative slope schedules because the feedback functions were negatively sloped across all response rates greater than the inverse of the variable-interval schedule, in this case, two per minute. Overall response rates varied inversely with the subtraction ratio, indicating sensitivity to the negative slope conditions, but were in excess of that required by accounts based on strict maximization of overall reinforcement rate. Performance was also not well described by a matching-based account. Detailed analyses of response patterning revealed a consistent two-state pattern in which bursts of high-rate responding alternated with periods of prolonged pausing, perhaps reflecting the joint influence of local and overall reinforcement rates.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (279.6 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Baum W. M. In search of the feedback function for variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):365–375. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum W. M. The correlation-based law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bradshaw C. M., Szabadi E., Bevan P. Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Sep;26(2):135–141. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradshaw C. M., Szabadi E., Bevan P. Effect of punishment on human variable-interval performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Mar;27(2):275–279. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradshaw C. M., Szabadi E., Bevan P. The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):71–81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Heyman G. M., Tanz L. How to teach a pigeon to maximize overall reinforcement rate. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Nov;64(3):277–297. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Madden G., Perone M. Human Sensitivity To Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement: Effects Of Observing Schedule-correlated Stimuli. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):303–318. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McDowell J. J., Wood H. M. Confirmation of linear system theory prediction: Changes in Herrnstein's k as a function of changes in reinforcer magnitude. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Mar;41(2):183–192. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rachlin H., Raineri A., Cross D. Subjective probability and delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Mar;55(2):233–244. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Silberberg A., Warren-Boulton F. R., Asano T. Maximizing present value: A model to explain why moderate response rates obtain on variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 May;49(3):331–338. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vaughan W., Jr, Miller H. L., Jr Optimization versus response-strength accounts of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Sep;42(2):337–348. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-337. [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