Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1994 May;61(3):465–477. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-465

Delay reduction and optimal foraging: variable-ratio search in a foraging analogue.

W A Williams 1, E Fantino 1
PMCID: PMC1334433  PMID: 8207354

Abstract

The present study investigated conditions under which the conditioned reinforcement principles of delay-reduction theory and views based on simple maximization of reinforcement rate make ordinally opposing predictions with respect to foraging-related choice behavior. The use of variable-ratio schedules in the choice phase also represents an extension of delay-reduction theory to schedules that may better mimic the effort involved in searching. Pigeons responded on modified concurrent-chains schedules in which equal variable-ratio schedules led to unequal variable-interval outcomes and unequal reinforcer amounts. All 4 subjects completed a minimum of two replications of conditions for which the predictions of delay-reduction theory and a simple rate-maximizing theory were opposed. Results were consistent with delay reduction's ordinal predictions in 11 of 11 replications of the divergent predictions favoring the smaller, more immediate alternative. The predictions of rate maximization were upheld only when they were consistent with those of delay reduction. Results are discussed in terms of conditioned reinforcement, sensitivity to reductions in delay to food, and possible rules of thumb that may be useful in characterizing foraging.

Full text

PDF
465

Selected References

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

  1. Abarca N., Fantino E. Choice and foraging. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Sep;38(2):117–123. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Charnov E. L. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Apr;9(2):129–136. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dunn R., Fantino E. Choice and the relative immediacy of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Nov;38(3):321–326. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fantino E. Choice and rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):723–730. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fantino E., Davison M. Choice: Some quantitative relations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jul;40(1):1–13. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fantino E., Preston R. A. Choice and foraging: the effects of accessibility on acceptability. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Nov;50(3):395–403. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fantino E., Preston R. A., Dunn R. Delay reduction: current status. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):159–169. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Herrnstein R. J., Heyman G. M. Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable interval variable ratio? J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Mar;31(2):209–223. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):107–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Heyman G. M., Herrnstein R. J. More on concurrent interval-ratio schedules: a replication and review. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Nov;46(3):331–351. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hinson J. M., Staddon J. E. Hill-climbing by pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jan;39(1):25–47. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ito M., Fantino E. Choice, foraging, and reinforcer duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jul;46(1):93–103. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Killeen P. R., Fantino E. Unification of models for choice between delayed reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Jan;53(1):189–200. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rachlin H., Green L. Commitment, choice and self-control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jan;17(1):15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Squires N., Fantino E. A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jan;15(1):27–38. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Vaughan W. Melioration, matching, and maximization. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):141–149. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-141. [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