Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2000 Sep;74(2):189–206. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-189

Synthesizing concurrent interval performances.

J S MacDonall 1
PMCID: PMC1284791  PMID: 11029022

Abstract

Concurrent schedules may be viewed as consisting of two pairs of stay and switch schedules, each pair associated with one of the alternatives. A stay schedule arranges reinforcers for staying and responding at one alternative, whereas the associated switch schedule arranges reinforcers for switching to the other alternative. In standard concurrent schedules, the stay schedule at each alternative is equivalent to the switch schedule at the other alternative. MacDonall (1999) exposed rats to one pair of stay and switch variable-ratio schedules and varied the response requirements across conditions. Combining results from symmetric pairs produced composite performances that were described by the generalized matching law. This outcome was noteworthy because the data were obtained from performances at two alternatives with contingencies that were functionally unrelated to each other. This result suggests that concurrent performances may consist of two unrelated performances that alternate as behavior moves between alternatives. The purpose of the present experiment was to extend those results to interval schedules. Rats were exposed to pairs of random-interval schedules, and across conditions their mean intervals were varied. When data from appropriately paired conditions were combined, the composite performances were consistent with the generalized matching law. In addition, the results supported two models of concurrent performances that were based on local variables at an alternative (behavior, and stay and switch reinforcers): a modified version of the contingency discrimination model (Davison & Jenkins, 1985) and the local model (MacDonall, 1999).

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (242.9 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. Baum W., Schwendiman J., Bell K. Choice, contingency discrimination, and foraging theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):355–373. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Davison M., Jones B. M. A quantitative analysis of extreme choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Sep;64(2):147–162. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-147. [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. Gibbon J., Church R. M., Fairhurst S., Kacelnik A. Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards. Psychol Rev. 1988 Jan;95(1):102–114. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.95.1.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Green L., Rachlin H., Hanson J. Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Nov;40(3):217–224. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Heyman G. M. A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):41–51. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Houston A. I., McNamara J. How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 May;35(3):367–396. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Macdonall J. S. Concurrent variable-ratio schedules: Implications for the generalized matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jul;50(1):55–64. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Macdonall J. A local model of concurrent performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Jan;71(1):57–74. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Macdonall J. Run length, visit duration, and reinforcers per visit in concurrent performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 May;69(3):275–293. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nevin J. A. Interval reinforcement of choice behavior in discrete trials. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):875–885. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shimp C. P. Probabilistically reinforced choice behavior in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jul;9(4):443–455. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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