Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1979 Mar;31(2):209–223. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-209

Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable interval variable ratio?1

R J Herrnstein, G M Heyman
PMCID: PMC1332823  PMID: 16812126

Abstract

Four pigeons on concurrent variable interval, variable ratio approximated the matching relationship with biases toward the variable interval when time spent responding was the measure of behavior and toward the variable ratio when frequency of pecking was the measure of behavior. The local rates of responding were consistently higher on the variable ratio, even when there was overall preference for the variable interval. Matching on concurrent variable interval, variable ratio was shown to be incompatible with maximization of total reinforcement, given the observed local rates of responding and rates of alternation between the schedules. Furthermore, it was shown that the subjects were losing reinforcements at a rate of about 60 per hour by matching rather than maximizing.

Keywords: concurrent VI VR, matching, maximization, reinforcement, pigeons

Full text

PDF
212

Selected References

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

  1. ANGER D. The dependence of interresponse times upon the relative reinforcement of different interresponse times. J Exp Psychol. 1956 Sep;52(3):145–161. doi: 10.1037/h0041255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bacotti A. V. Matching under concurrent fixed-ratio variable-interval schedules of food presentation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):171–182. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. Beautrais P. G., Davison M. C. Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):61–69. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Blough P. M., Blough D. S. The distribution of interresponse times in the pigeon during variable-interval reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):23–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bouzas A., Baum W. M. Behavioral contrast of time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Mar;25(2):179–184. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brownstein A. J., Pliskoff S. S. Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):683–688. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Catania A. C., Reynolds G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3 Suppl):327–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davison M., Ferguson A. The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. HERRNSTEIN R. J. SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Jan;7:27–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Herrnstein R. J. Quantitative hedonism. J Psychiatr Res. 1971 Aug;8(3):399–412. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(71)90033-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Heyman G. M. A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):41–51. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Rapport D. J., Turner J. E. Economic models in ecology. Science. 1977 Jan 28;195(4276):367–373. doi: 10.1126/science.195.4276.367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. White K. G. Behavioral contrast as differential time allocation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):151–160. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Zuriff G. E. A comparison of variable-ratio and variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 May;13(3):369–374. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-369. [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