Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1974 Jul;22(1):21–30. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-21

A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules: the relationship between component duration and responding1

Alan Silberberg, John Schrot
PMCID: PMC1333237  PMID: 16811779

Abstract

Two experimental chambers were electrically connected so that the component selected by a pigeon confronting concurrent variable-interval schedules in one chamber could be successively presented as a multiple schedule to a second pigeon in the other chamber. Component duration was regulated by the use of a changeover delay, the value of which was systematically varied between 0 and 30 sec. It was found that the relative local response rates on the preferred key (absolute response rate to that component divided by the sum of the absolute response rates during both components) tended to increase with increasing component durations for the birds in the concurrent chamber, but decreased for the birds in the multiple chamber. These data support the interpretation that there are fundamental differences in the mode of responding to multiple and concurrent schedules. Based on these findings, it was concluded that previous demonstrations of matching on multiple schedules do not establish that response allocation is controlled by a process equivalent to that found on choice paradigms. It now appears that matching on multiple (but not concurrent) schedules is a consequence of selecting short component durations. The implications of these data for Herrnstein's (1970) and Rachlin's (1973) formulations of the relationship between multiple and concurrent schedules are examined.

Full text

PDF
21

Selected References

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

  1. Brown P. L., Jenkins H. M. Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):1–8. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Gamzu E., Schwartz B. The maintenance of key pecking by stimulus-contingent and response-independent food presentation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):65–72. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. Killeen P. A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):13–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lander D. G., Irwin R. J. Multiple schedules: effects of the distribution of reinforcements between component on the distribution of responses between conponents. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Sep;11(5):517–524. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. REYNOLDS G. S. Some limitations on behavioral contrast and induction during successive discrimination. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jan;6:131–139. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shimp C. P., Wheatley K. L. Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar;15(2):205–210. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Shull R. L., Pliskoff S. S. Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Nov;10(6):517–527. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sidman M. By-products of aversive control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Aug;1(3):265–280. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Silberberg A., Fantino E. Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):187–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Todorov J. C. Component duration and relative response rates in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jan;17(1):45–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Todorov J. C. Concurrent performances: effect of punishment contingent on the switching response. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jul;16(1):51–62. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-51. [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