Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1966 Jul;9(4):443–455. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-443

Probabilistically reinforced choice behavior in pigeons1

Charles P Shimp
PMCID: PMC1338246  PMID: 5961513

Abstract

A single principle, “momentary maximizing”, may account for much of a pigeon's steady-state behavior in both probability learning and concurrent variable interval experiments. The principle states that a pigeon tends to choose the alternative that momentarily has the higher probability of reinforcement. A successive discrimination procedure, which produced matching in an earlier experiment, produced here a tendency to maximize if training were adequately extended. Maximizing was produced also by other procedures, in which no reinforcing event was presented on some trials: one procedure did and two did not provide a bird with information about the availability of reinforcement on a key after an unreinforced response on the other key. The latter two procedures were analogous to concurrent variable interval schedules in two respects: the reinforcement probability on one key increased while a bird responded on the other key; and they produced matching. But sequential statistics suggested that matching resulted from momentary maximizing. Depending on the procedure, the tendency to maximize produced different relative frequencies of pecking a key for a fixed relative frequency of reinforcement. Computer simulation of maximizing behavior in several concurrent variable interval schedules produced matching and sequential statistics similar to those produced by a real bird.

Full text

PDF
455

Selected References

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

  1. BULLOCK D. H., BITTERMAN M. E. Probability-matching in the pigeon. Am J Psychol. 1962 Dec;75:634–639. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:253–263. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. CLARK W. A., MOLNAR C. E. THE LINC: A DESCRIPTION OF THE LABORATORY INSTRUMENT COMPUTER. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1964 Jul 31;115:653–668. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. GRAF V., BULLOCK D. H., BITTERMAN M. E. FURTHER EXPERIMENTS ON PROBABILITY-MATCHING IN THE PIGEON. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Mar;7:151–157. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. REYNOLDS G. S. On some determinants of choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jan;6:53–59. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. REYNOLDS G. S. Relativity of response rate and reinforcement frequency in a multiple schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Apr;4:179–184. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. REYNOLDS G. S. Relativity of response rate and reinforcement frequency in a multiple schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Apr;4:179–184. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. SKINNER B. F. Are theories of learning necessary? Psychol Rev. 1950 Jul;57(4):193–216. doi: 10.1037/h0054367. [DOI] [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