Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2001 Mar;75(2):207–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.75-207

Reinforcer-ratio variation and its effects on rate of adaptation.

J Landon 1, M Davison 1
PMCID: PMC1284815  PMID: 11394487

Abstract

Six pigeons were trained in sessions that consisted of six or seven concurrent-schedule components, each of which could have a different reinforcer ratio arranged in it. The components were unsignaled and occurred in a random order separated by 10-s blackouts. The overall reinforcer rate arranged in each component was 2.22 reinforcers per minute. In Experiment 1, the range of reinforcer ratios in the seven components was varied from a condition in which the ratios were always 1:1, to a condition in which the ratios varied between concurrent variable-interval 27 s extinction (EXT) and concurrent extinction variable-interval 27 s (ratios of 1:EXT, 9:1, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3, 1:9, EXT:1). In Experiment 2, the range of reinforcer ratios was always 27:1 to 1:27, and the presence and absence of the intermediate reinforcer ratios used in Experiment 1 (9:1, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3, 1:9) were investigated. Log response-allocation ratios in components changed rapidly with increasing numbers of reinforcers in components, and Experiment 1 showed that sensitivity to reinforcement was usually higher when the range of reinforcer ratios was greater. When the range of reinforcer ratios was kept constant in Experiment 2, the presence or absence of less extreme reinforcer ratios had no clear effect on sensitivity. At a local level, individual reinforcers had predictable quantitative effects on response ratios: Successive same-alternative reinforcers in a component had rapidly diminishing effects in both experiments. Reinforcers obtained on the opposite alternative to one or more prior reinforcers always had large effects on preference, and these changes were greater when the range of reinforcer ratios was greater. The effects of such reinforcers in changing preference were enhanced, and produced clear preference reversals, when intermediate reinforcer ratios were absent in Experiment 2. Two processes, one local to reinforcers and one with a longer time course, may be necessary to account for these results.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (368.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Alsop B., Elliffe D. Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jan;49(1):21–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BUSH R. R., MOSTELLER F. A mathematical model for simple learning. Psychol Rev. 1951 Sep;58(5):313–323. doi: 10.1037/h0054388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey J. T., Mazur J. E. Choice behavior in transition: development of preference for the higher probability of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 May;53(3):409–422. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-409. [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. Belke T. W., Heyman G. M. Increasing and signaling background reinforcement: effect on the foreground response-reinforcer relation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jan;61(1):65–81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Davison M. C., Hunter I. W. Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):233–244. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davison M., Baum W. M. Choice in a variable environment: every reinforcer counts. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 Jul;74(1):1–24. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Elliffe D., Alsop B. Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Mar;65(2):445–463. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Hunter I., Davison M. Determination of a behavioral transfer function: White-noise analysis of session-to-session response-ratio dynamics on concurrent VI VI schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Jan;43(1):43–59. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Lobb B., Davison M. C. Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Sep;24(2):191–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mazur J. E. Choice behavior in transition: development of preference with ratio and interval schedules. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1992 Oct;18(4):364–378. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.18.4.364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Mazur J. E. Effects of rate of reinforcement and rate of change on choice behaviour in transition. Q J Exp Psychol B. 1997 May;50(2):111–128. doi: 10.1080/713932646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Schofield G., Davison M. Nonstable concurrent choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Sep;68(2):219–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1997.68-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shettleworth S. J., Plowright C. M. How pigeons estimate rates of prey encounter. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1992 Jul;18(3):219–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Staddon J. E. Spaced responding and choice: a preliminary analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):669–682. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Taylor R., Davison M. Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jan;39(1):191–198. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-191. [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