Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1987 Sep;48(2):251–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-251

Molar optimization versus delayed reinforcement as explanations of choice between fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules.

J E Mazur 1, W Vaughan Jr 1
PMCID: PMC1338729  PMID: 3681185

Abstract

In a discrete-trials procedure, pigeons chose between a fixed-ratio 81 schedule and a progressive-ratio schedule by making a single peck at the key correlated with one or the other of these schedules. The response requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule began at 1 and increased by 10 each time the progressive-ratio schedule was chosen. Each time the fixed-ratio schedule was chosen, the requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule was reset to 1 response. In conditions where there was no intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about five consecutive trials (during which the response requirement increased to 41), and then chose the fixed-ratio schedule. This ratio was larger than that predicted by an optimality analysis that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that minimizes the response-reinforcer ratio or one that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that maximizes the overall rate of reinforcement. In conditions with a 25-s or 50-s intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about eight consecutive trials before choosing the fixed-ratio schedule. This change in performance with the addition of an intertrial interval was also not predicted by an optimality analysis. On the other hand, the results were consistent with the theory that choice is determined by the delays to the reinforcers delivered on the present trial and on subsequent trials.

Full text

PDF
251

Selected References

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

  1. Ainslie G. Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychol Bull. 1975 Jul;82(4):463–496. doi: 10.1037/h0076860. [DOI] [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. Hinson J. M., Staddon J. E. Matching, maximizing, and hill-climbing. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Nov;40(3):321–331. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hodos W., Trumbule G. H. Strategies of schedule preference in chimpanzees. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Nov;10(6):503–514. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mazur J. E. Fixed and variable ratios and delays: further tests of an equivalence rule. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1986 Apr;12(2):116–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mazur J. E., Snyderman M., Coe D. Influences of delay and rate of reinforcement on discrete-trial choice. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1985 Oct;11(4):565–575. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Vaughan W. Choice: A local analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):383–405. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-383. [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