Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2000 Sep;74(2):165–188. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-165

Comparing preference and resistance to change in constant- and variable-duration schedule components.

R C Grace 1, J A Nevin 1
PMCID: PMC1284790  PMID: 11029021

Abstract

Two experiments explored preference and resistance to change in concurrent chains in which the terminal links were variable-interval schedules that ended either after a single reinforcer had been delivered (variable duration) or after a fixed period of access to the schedule (constant duration). In Experiment 1, pigeons' preference between the same pair of terminal links overmatched relative reinforcement rate when the terminal links were of constant duration, but not when they were of variable duration. Responding during the richer terminal link decreased less, relative to baseline, when response-independent food was presented during the initial links according to a variable-time schedule. In Experiment 2, all subjects consistently preferred a terminal link that consisted of 20-s access to a variable-interval 20-s schedule over a terminal link that ended after one reinforcer had been delivered by the same schedule. Results of resistance-to-change tests corresponded to preference, as responding during the constant-duration terminal link decreased less, relative to baseline, when disrupted by both response-independent food during the initial links and prefeeding. Overall, these data extend the general covariation of preference and resistance to change seen in previous studies. However, they suggest that reinforcement numerosity, including variability in the number of reinforcers per terminal-link entry, may sometimes affect preference and resistance to change in ways that are difficult to explain in terms of current models.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (330.4 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Alsop B., Davison M. Preference for multiple versus mixed schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jan;45(1):33–45. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Case D. A., Nichols P., Fantino E. Pigeons' preference for variable-interval water reinforcement under widely varied water budgets. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Nov;64(3):299–311. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davison M. C., Temple W. Preference for fixed-interval schedules: an alternative model. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Nov;20(3):393–403. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-393. [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. 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]
  7. Dunn R., Williams B., Royalty P. Devaluation of stimuli contingent on choice: evidence for conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Jul;48(1):117–131. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Fantino E. Effects of required rates of responding upon choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fantino E., Herrnstein R. J. Secondary reinforcement and number of primary reinforcements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):9–14. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gentry G. D., Marr M. J. Choice and reinforcement delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jan;33(1):27–37. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. Harper D. N. Response-independent food delivery and behavioral resistance to change. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 May;65(3):549–560. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Killeen P. R. Incentive theory: II. Models for choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Sep;38(2):217–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Mazur J. E. Choice between single and multiple delayed reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jul;46(1):67–77. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Moore J. Choice and number of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jul;32(1):51–63. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Moore J. Choice and transformed interreinforcement intervals. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Sep;42(2):321–335. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Moore J., Fantino E. Choice and response contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 May;23(3):339–347. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. Nevin J. A., Grace R. C. Preference and resistance to change with constant-duration schedule components. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jul;74(1):79–100. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Poniewaz W. R. Effects on preference of reinforcement delay, number of reinforcers, and terminal-link duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Sep;42(2):255–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Shull R. L., Spear D. J., Bryson A. E. Delay or rate of food delivery as determiners of response rate. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Mar;35(2):129–143. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Squires N., Fantino E. A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jan;15(1):27–38. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Stubbs D. A., Pliskoff S. S. Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):887–895. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]

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

RESOURCES