Abstract
Two experiments investigated the extent to which response contingencies influence the choice between two schedules of reinforcement by exposing pigeons to a concurrent-chains procedure in which reinforcers in one terminal link were response-independent, and in the other terminal link, response-dependent. In Experiment 1, the pigeons were indifferent between an aperiodic, response-independent schedule and an aperiodic, response-dependent schedule that required a minimum rate of responding. This finding limits the generality of a required-rate contingency as a determinant of choice, which contingency had been previously demonstrated in a context of periodic reinforcement to evoke preference for an alternate schedule. In Experiment 2, the pigeons preferred a periodic, response-independent schedule to a periodic, response-dependent schedule that shared a feature with a required-rate schedule: there was a requirement to respond early in the interreinforcement interval, when responding produced reinforcement only later. The results of the two experiments suggest the following general interpretation: pigeons prefer a second schedule to the extent that the response contingencies of the first schedule must be satisfied during discriminable periods of nonreinforcement.
Full text
PDFdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/394cb/394cb5360bd5d6fe40b2ac62b987a3d058c7afc9" alt="339"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/05d40/05d40ad256e7253b8382287d70e5a62dabe9fb1b" alt="340"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc8be/dc8be49725f63a3afa85c10d2abf3c9663a3da36" alt="341"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5ddf/c5ddfab467c9d478a4116be67ee3050ec0ff244a" alt="342"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b4e15/b4e15ce4513016f56dc5f9c4cda1a71007026ea1" alt="343"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/502a6/502a69e8aa537715c7565eebcee33cc57093c298" alt="344"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e708a/e708a469a7a0d3d5b936b339bde6a0fa92547440" alt="345"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7be18/7be18a984c2effe6acede7320626164db6428ffb" alt="346"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c8d83/c8d83bc4cb16eb3e324d019649069b1bdccd24d4" alt="347"
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- 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]
- Duncan B., Fantino E. The psychological distance to reward. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):23–34. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fantino E. Effects of required rates of responding upon choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Schneider J. W. Choice between two-component chained and tandem schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):45–60. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shull R. L. A response-initiated fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jan;13(1):13–15. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zeiler M. D. Fixed and variable schedules of response-independent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jul;11(4):405–414. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]