Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1969 Sep;12(5):723–730. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723

Choice and rate of reinforcement, 1,2

Edmund Fantino
PMCID: PMC1338674  PMID: 16811396

Abstract

Pigeons' responses in the presence of two concurrently available (initial-link) stimuli produced one of two different (terminal-link) stimuli. The rate of reinforcement in the presence of one terminal-link stimulus was three times that of the other. Three different pairs of identical but independent variable-interval schedules controlled entry into the terminal links. When the intermediate pair was in effect, the pigeons distributed their (choice) responses in the presence of the concurrently available stimuli of the initial links in the same proportion as reinforcements were distributed in the mutually exclusive terminal links. This finding was consistent with those of earlier studies. When either the pair of larger or smaller variable-interval schedules was in effect, however, proportions of choice responses did not match proportions of reinforcements. In addition, matching was not obtained when entry into the terminal links was controlled by unequal variable-interval schedules. A formulation consistent with extant data states that choice behavior is dependent upon the amount of reduction in the expected time to primary reinforcement, as signified by entry into one terminal link, relative to the amount of reduction in expected time to reinforcement signified by entry into the other terminal link.

Full text

PDF
723

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. Fantino E., Herrnstein R. J. Secondary reinforcement and number of primary reinforcements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):9–14. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fantino E. Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Jan;10(1):35–43. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. HEARST E., KORESKO M. B., POPPEN R. STIMULUS GENERALIZATION AND THE RESPONSE-REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCY. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Sep;7:369–380. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Pliskoff S. S., Hawkins T. D. A method for increasing the reinforcement magnitude of intracranial stimulation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 May;10(3):281–289. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rachlin H. The effect of shock intensity on concurrent and single-key responding in concurrent-chain schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Jan;10(1):87–93. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Reynolds G. S. Potency of Conditioned Reinforcers Based on Food and on Food and Punishment. Science. 1963 Mar 1;139(3557):838–839. doi: 10.1126/science.139.3557.838. [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