Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1995 May;63(3):255–276. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-255

Independence of reinforcement delay and magnitude in concurrent chains

Randolph C Grace
PMCID: PMC1334445  PMID: 16812759

Abstract

A three-component concurrent-chains procedure was used to investigate preference between terminal-link schedules that differed in delay and magnitude of reinforcement. Response and time allocation data were well described by a generalized matching model. Sensitivity to delay appeared to be lower when reinforcement magnitudes were unequal than when they were equal, but when obtained rather than programmed time spent responding in the initial links was used in the model, the difference vanished. The results support independence of delay and magnitude as separate dimensions of reinforcement value, as required by the matching law, and the assumption of the contextual choice model (Grace, 1994) that sensitivities to delay and magnitude are affected similarly by temporal context. Although there was statistical evidence for interaction between successive components, the effects were small and transient. The multiple-component concurrent-chains procedure should prove useful in future research on multidimensional preference, although it may be necessary to control obtained initial-link time more precisely.

Keywords: concurrent chains, self-control, reinforcer magnitude, delay of reinforcement, choice, matching law, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
255

Selected References

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

  1. Ainslie G. W. Impulse control in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):485–489. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baum W. M. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-269. [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. Performances on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement: Data and theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Mar;59(2):245–264. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. Chelonis J. J., King G., Logue A. W., Tobin H. The effect of variable delays on self-control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jul;62(1):33–43. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davison M. Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jul;40(1):15–34. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Davison M. Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 May;49(3):339–349. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Duncan B., Fantino E. Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Jul;14(1):73–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. Green L., Snyderman M. Choice between rewards differing in amount and delay: Toward a choice model of self control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Sep;34(2):135–147. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Ito M., Asaki K. Choice behavior of rats in a concurrent-chains schedule: Amount and delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 May;37(3):383–392. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Killeen P. Preference for fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Sep;14(2):127–131. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Killeen P. The matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 May;17(3):489–495. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Logue A. W., Rodriguez M. L., Peña-Correal T. E., Mauro B. C. Choice in a self-control paradigm: Quantification of experience-based differences. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Jan;41(1):53–67. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Macewen D. The effects of terminal-link fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules on responding under concurrent chained schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):253–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mazur J. E., Logue A. W. Choice in a "self-control" paradigm: effects of a fading procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jul;30(1):11–17. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. McLean A. P. Successive independence of multiple-schedule component performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jan;49(1):117–141. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Nevin J. A., Mandell C., Whittaker S. Contrast and induction in multiple schedules of discrete-trial concurrent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jul;30(1):53–61. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pearce J. M., Hall G. A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev. 1980 Nov;87(6):532–552. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Snyderman M. Delay and amount of reward in a concurrent chain. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 May;39(3):437–447. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. White K. G., Pipe M. E. Sensitivity to reinforcer duration in a self-control procedure. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Sep;48(2):235–249. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams B. A., Fantino E. Effects on choice of reinforcement delay and conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jan;29(1):77–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-77. [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