Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2002 May;77(3):257–271. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-257

Concurrent schedules: short- and long-term effects of reinforcers.

Jason Landon 1, Michael Davison 1, Douglas Elliffe 1
PMCID: PMC1284860  PMID: 12083679

Abstract

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in a switching-key procedure. The overall rate of reinforcement was constant in all conditions, and the ratios of reinforcers obtainable on the two alternatives were varied over seven levels. Each condition remained in effect for 65 sessions, and the last 50 sessions of data from each condition were analyzed. The most recently obtained reinforcer had the largest effect on current preference, but each of the eight previously obtained reinforcers had a small measurable effect. These effects were larger when the reinforcer ratio was more extreme. A longer term effect of reinforcement was also evident, which changed as a function of the reinforcer ratio arranged. More local analyses showed regularities at a reinforcer-by-reinforcer level and large transient movements in preference toward the just-reinforced alternative immediately following reinforcers, followed by a return to stable levels that were related to the reinforcer ratio in effect. The present data suggest that the variables that control choice have both short- and long-term effects and that the short-term effects increased when the reinforcer ratios arranged were more extreme.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (224.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  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. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. Davison Michael, Baum William M. Choice in a variable environment: effects of blackout duration and extinction between components. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 Jan;77(1):65–89. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. Landon J., Davison M. Reinforcer-ratio variation and its effects on rate of adaptation. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Mar;75(2):207–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.75-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Nevin J. A. Quantitative analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Nov;42(3):421–434. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. Wearden J. H., Burgess I. S. Matching since Baum (1979). J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Nov;38(3):339–348. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-339. [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