Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2003 May;79(3):351–365. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-351

Concurrent schedules: reinforcer magnitude effects.

Jason Landon 1, Michael Davison 1, Douglas Elliffe 1
PMCID: PMC1284939  PMID: 12908762

Abstract

Five pigeons were trained on pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules in a switching-key procedure. The arranged overall rate of reinforcement was constant in all conditions, and the reinforcer-magnitude ratios obtained from the two alternatives were varied over five levels. Each condition remained in effect for 65 sessions and the last 50 sessions of data from each condition were analyzed. At a molar level of analysis, preference was described well by a version of the generalized matching law, consistent with previous reports. More local analyses showed that recently obtained reinforcers had small measurable effects on current preference, with the most recently obtained reinforcer having a substantially larger effect. Larger reinforcers resulted in larger and longer preference pulses, and a small preference was maintained for the larger-magnitude alternative even after long inter-reinforcer intervals. These results are consistent with the notion that the variables controlling choice have both short- and long-term effects. Moreover, they suggest that control by reinforcer magnitude is exerted in a manner similar to control by reinforcer frequency. Lower sensitivities when reinforcer magnitude is varied are likely to be due to equal frequencies of different sized preference pulses, whereas higher sensitivities when reinforcer rates are varied might result from changes in the frequencies of different sized preference pulses.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (202.2 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. 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. Baum W. M., Rachlin H. C. Choice as time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):861–874. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:299–300. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Davison M. Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 May;49(3):339–349. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Davison M., Hogsden I. Concurrent variable-interval schedule performance: Fixed versus mixed reinforcer durations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Mar;41(2):169–182. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. Keller J. V., Gollub L. R. Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Sep;28(2):145–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.28-145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Killeen P. The matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 May;17(3):489–495. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Landon Jason, Davison Michael, Elliffe Douglas. Concurrent schedules: short- and long-term effects of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 May;77(3):257–271. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.77-257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. McLean A. P., Blampied N. M. Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Jan;75(1):25–42. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.75-25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Schneider J. W. Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: a comparison of concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Nov;20(3):461–471. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. Todorov J. C., Hanna E. S., Bittencourt De Sá M. C. Frequency versus magnitude of reinforcement: New data with a different procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Mar;41(2):157–167. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Todorov J. C. Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):451–458. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Todorov J. C., de Oliveira Castro J. M., Hanna E. S., Bittencourt de Sa M. C., Barreto M. Q. Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Sep;40(2):99–111. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. 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