Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1980 Jul;34(1):77–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-77

Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons

A Charles Catania, Terje Sagvolden
PMCID: PMC1332946  PMID: 16812181

Abstract

In a six-key chamber variable-interval initial links of concurrent-chain schedules operated on two lower white keys. Terminal links operated on four upper keys; green keys were correlated with fixed-interval reinforcement and red keys with extinction. Free-choice terminal links arranged three green keys and one red key; forced-choice terminal links arranged one green key and three red keys. Thus, terminal links were equivalent in number, variety, and information value (in bits) of the keylights. Preferences (relative initial-link rates) were studied both with location of the odd key color varying over successive terminal links and with the odd color fixed at key locations that had controlled either relatively high or relatively low terminal-link response rates. Free choice was consistently preferred to forced choice. Magnitude of preference did not vary systematically with terminal-link response rate or stimulus control by green and red keys. The origins of free-choice preference could be ontogenic or phylogenic: organisms may learn that momentarily preferred alternatives are more often available in free than in forced choice, and evolutionary contingencies may favor the survival of organisms that prefer free to forced choice.

Keywords: concurrent chain schedules, preference, free vs forced choice, response variability, position preference, freedom, key peck, pigeon

Full text

PDF

Selected References

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

  1. Catania A. C. Freedom and knowledge: an experimental analysis of preference in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):89–106. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Eckerman D. A., Lanson R. N. Variability of response location for pigeons responding under continuous reinforcement, intermittent reinforcement, and extinction. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jan;12(1):73–80. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. HERRNSTEIN R. J. Stereotypy and intermittent reinforcement. Science. 1961 Jun 30;133(3470):2067–2069. doi: 10.1126/science.133.3470.2067-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Leigland S. M. Deviations from matching as a measure of preference for alternatives in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jul;32(1):1–13. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Menlove R. L., Moffitt M., Shimp C. P. Choice between concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):331–344. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moore J., Fantino E. Choice and response contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 May;23(3):339–347. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Neuringer A. J. Delayed reinforcement versus reinforcement after a fixed interval. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 May;12(3):375–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Roeder K. D. Neural factors and evitability in insect behavior. J Exp Zool. 1975 Oct;194(1):75–88. doi: 10.1002/jez.1401940106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Rozin P., Kalat J. W. Specific hungers and poison avoidance as adaptive specializations of learning. Psychol Rev. 1971 Nov;78(6):459–486. doi: 10.1037/h0031878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Schoenfeld W. N., Harris A. H., Farmer J. Conditioning response variability. Psychol Rep. 1966 Oct;19(2):551–557. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1966.19.2.551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Skinner B. F. The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior. Contingencies of reinforcement throw light on contingencies of survival in the evolution of behavior. Science. 1966 Sep 9;153(3741):1205–1213. doi: 10.1126/science.153.3741.1205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Skinner B. F. The shaping of phylogenic behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):117–120. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-117. [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