Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2003 Jul;80(1):95–129. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-95

Every reinforcer counts: reinforcer magnitude and local preference.

Michael Davison 1, William M Baum 1
PMCID: PMC1284949  PMID: 13677611

Abstract

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. Sessions consisted of seven components, each lasting 10 reinforcers, with the conditions of reinforcement differing between components. The component sequence was randomly selected without replacement. In Experiment 1, the concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratios in components were all equal to 1.0, but across components reinforcer-magnitude ratios varied from 1:7 through 7:1. Three different overall reinforcer rates were arranged across conditions. In Experiment 2, the reinforcer-rate ratios varied across components from 27:1 to 1:27, and the reinforcer-magnitude ratios for each alternative were changed across conditions from 1:7 to 7:1. The results of Experiment 1 replicated the results for changing reinforcer-rate ratios across components reported by Davison and Baum (2000, 2002): Sensitivity to reinforcer-magnitude ratios increased with increasing numbers of reinforcers in components. Sensitivity to magnitude ratio, however, fell short of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratio. The degree of carryover from component to component depended on the reinforcer rate. Larger reinforcers produced larger and longer postreinforcer preference pulses than did smaller reinforcers. Similar results were found in Experiment 2, except that sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude was considerably higher and was greater for magnitudes that differed more from one another. Visit durations following reinforcers measured either as number of responses emitted or time spent responding before a changeover were longer following larger than following smaller reinforcers, and were longer following sequences of same reinforcers than following other sequences. The results add to the growing body of research that informs model building at local levels.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (513.7 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. The correlation-based law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137. [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. 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 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]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. Duncan B., Fantino E. Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jul;14(1):73–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-73. [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. Epstein R. Amount consumed varies as a function of feeder design. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Jul;44(1):121–125. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-121. [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. Krägeloh Christian U., Davison Michael. Concurrent-schedule performance in transition: changeover delays and signaled reinforcer ratios. J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 Jan;79(1):87–109. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Landon Jason, Davison Michael, Elliffe Douglas. Concurrent schedules: reinforcer magnitude effects. J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 May;79(3):351–365. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.79-351. [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. 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]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES