Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2000 Nov;74(3):311–330. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-311

Choice, changing over, and reinforcement delays.

T A Shahan 1, K A Lattal 1
PMCID: PMC1284799  PMID: 11218228

Abstract

In three experiments, pigeons were used to examine the independent effects of two normally confounded delays to reinforcement associated with changing between concurrently available variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In Experiments 1 and 2, combinations of changeover-delay durations and fixed-interval travel requirements were arranged in a changeover-key procedure. The delay from a changeover-produced stimulus change to a reinforcer was varied while the delay between the last response on one alternative and a reinforcer on the other (the total obtained delay) was held constant. Changeover rates decreased as a negative power function of the total obtained delay. The delay between a changeover-produced stimulus change had a small and inconsistent effect on changeover rates. In Experiment 3, changeover delays and fixed-interval travel requirements were arranged independently. Changeover rates decreased as a negative power function of the total obtained delay despite variations in the delay from a change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer. Periods of high-rate responding following a changeover, however, were higher near the end of the delay from a change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer. The results of these experiments suggest that the effects of changeover delays and travel requirements primarily result from changes in the delay between a response at one alternative and a reinforcer at the other, but the pattern of responding immediately after a changeover depends on the delay from a changeover-produced change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (244.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Aparicio C., Baum W. Comparing Locomotion With Lever-press Travel In An Operant Simulation Of Foraging. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Sep;68(2):177–192. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum W. M. Choice, changeover, and travel. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jul;38(1):35–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baum W. M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Baum W., Aparicio C. Optimality And Concurrent Variable-interval Variable-ratio Schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Jan;71(1):75–89. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. CATANIA A. C., CUTTS D. Experimental control of superstitious responding inhumans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:203–208. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:253–263. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Davison M. Choice, changeover, and travel: A quantitative model. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jan;55(1):47–61. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Davison M., Elliffe D. Travel time and concurrent-schedule choice: retrospective versus prospective control. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jan;73(1):65–77. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davison M., McCarthy D. Leaving patches: An investigation of a laboratory analogue. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jul;62(1):89–108. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. Findley J. D. Preference and Switching under Concurrent Scheduling. J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Apr;1(2):123–144. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. Jones B. M., Davison M. Residence time and choice in concurrent foraging schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Mar;65(2):423–444. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. KELLEHER R. T., GOLLUB L. R. A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:543–597. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. McCarthy D., Voss P., Davison M. Leaving patches: Effects of travel requirements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Sep;62(2):185–200. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Menlove R. L. Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 May;23(3):309–337. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pliskoff S. S., Cicerone R., Nelson T. D. Local response-rate constancy on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):431–446. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Pliskoff S. S. Effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical changeover delays on concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Sep;16(2):249–256. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rachlin H., Green L. Commitment, choice and self-control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jan;17(1):15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. SKINNER B. F. Are theories of learning necessary? Psychol Rev. 1950 Jul;57(4):193–216. doi: 10.1037/h0054367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Shahan T., Lattal K. On the functions of the changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Mar;69(2):141–160. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.69-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Shull R. L., Pliskoff S. S. Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Nov;10(6):517–527. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-517. [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. Silberberg A., Fantino E. Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):187–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Stubbs D. A., Pliskoff S. S., Reid H. M. Concurrent schedules: a quantitative relation between changeover behavior and its consequences. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):85–96. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Temple W., Scown J. M., Foster T. M. Changeover delay and concurrent-schedule performance in domestic hens. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Jan;63(1):71–95. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Williams B. A., Bell M. C. Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 May;65(3):513–526. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Williams B., Bell M. Preference after training with differential changeover delays. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Jan;71(1):45–55. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-45. [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