Abstract
Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules that provided concurrent reinforcement in each of two components. In Experiment 1, one component consisted of a variable-interval (VI) 40-s schedule presented with a VI 20-s schedule, and the other a VI 40-s schedule presented with a VI 80-s schedule. After extended training, probe tests measured preference between the stimuli associated with the two 40-s schedules. Probe tests replicated the results of Belke (1992) that showed preference for the 40-s schedule that had been paired with the 80-s schedule. In a second condition, the overall reinforcer rate provided by the two components was equated by adding a signaled VI schedule to the component with the lower reinforcer rate. Probe results were unchanged. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on alternating concurrent VI 30-s VI 60-s schedules. One schedule provided 2-s access to food and the other provided 6-s access. The larger reinforcer magnitude produced higher response rates and was preferred on probe trials. Rate of changeover responding, however, did not differ as a function of reinforcer magnitude. The present results demonstrate that preference on probe trials is not a simple reflection of the pattern of changeover behavior established during training.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (137.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Gallistel C. R., Gibbon J. Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):289–344. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gibbon J., Church R. M., Fairhurst S., Kacelnik A. Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards. Psychol Rev. 1988 Jan;95(1):102–114. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.95.1.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Killeen P. R. Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):407–417. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mark T. A., Gallistel C. R. Kinetics of matching. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1994 Jan;20(1):79–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- McLean A. P., White K. G. Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 May;39(3):405–426. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams B. A., Royalty P. A test of the melioration theory of matching. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1989 Apr;15(2):99–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]