Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2000 Jul;74(1):79–100. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-79

Preference and resistance to change with constant-duration schedule components.

J A Nevin 1, R C Grace 1
PMCID: PMC1284785  PMID: 10966097

Abstract

Previous research on preference between variable-interval terminal links in concurrent chains has most often used variable-duration terminal links ending with a single reinforcer. By contrast, most research on resistance to change in multiple schedules has used constant-duration components that include variable numbers of reinforcers in each presentation. Grace and Nevin (1997) examined both preference and resistance in variable-duration components; here, preference and resistance were examined in constant-duration components. Reinforcer rates were varied across eight conditions, and a generalized-matching-law analysis showed that initial-link preference strongly over-matched terminal-link reinforcer ratios. In multiple schedules, baseline response rates were unaffected by reinforcer rates, but resistance to intercomponent food, to extinction, and to intercomponent food plus extinction was greater in the richer component. The between-component difference in resistance to change exhibited additive effects for the three resistance tests, and was systematically related to reinforcer ratios. However, resistance was less sensitive to reinforcer ratios than was preference. Resistance to intercomponent food and to intercomponent food plus extinction was more sensitive to reinforcer ratios in the present study than in Grace and Nevin (1997). Thus, relative to variable-duration components, constant-duration components increased the sensitivity of both preference and relative resistance, supporting the proposition that these are independent and convergent measures of the effects of a history of reinforcement.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (262.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Cohen S. L., Riley D. S., Weigle P. A. Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Sep;60(2):255–291. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Davison M. C., Tustin R. D. The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):331–336. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Davison M., Nevin J. Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):439–482. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. Grace R. C. A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jan;61(1):113–129. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Grace R., Nevin J. On the relation between preference and resistance to change. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Jan;67(1):43–65. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.67-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Grace R., Schwendiman J., Nevin J. Effects of unsignaled delay of reinforcement on preference and resistance to change. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 May;69(3):247–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. McSweeney F. K., Farmer V. A., Dougan J. D., Whipple J. E. The generalized matching law as a description of multiple-schedule responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jan;45(1):83–101. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nevin J. A. An integrative model for the study of behavioral momentum. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 May;57(3):301–316. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nevin J. A., Grace R. C. Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Feb;23(1):73–130. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00002405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nevin J. A., Grace R. C. Does the context of reinforcement affect resistance to change? J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1999 Apr;25(2):256–268. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.25.2.256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Nevin J. A. Response strength in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):389–408. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Nevin J. A., Tota M. E., Torquato R. D., Shull R. L. Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies? J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 May;53(3):359–379. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-359. [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