Abstract
Pigeons responded on multiple variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement in an open and a closed economy. Equal duration components were increased in duration while the component rates of reinforcement were held constant, the component schedules were reversed, and component duration was decreased. In the open economy, daily sessions were limited to 1 hr, and subjects were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding weights through supplemental feeding when necessary in their home cages. In the closed economy, subjects were housed in their experimental chambers and no deprivation regimen was enforced. Relative response rate decreased as components were lengthened in the open economy, whereas in the closed economy relative rate increased as components were lengthened. Response proportions overmatched reinforcer proportions to a greater extent at long component durations in the closed economy, but there was no systematic effect of component duration on responding in the open economy.
Full text
PDF











Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baum W. M. Choice in free-ranging wild pigeons. Science. 1974 Jul 5;185(4145):78–79. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4145.78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Charman L., Davison M. On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 May;37(3):417–439. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Charman L., Davison M. On the effects of food deprivation and component reinforcer rates on multiple-schedule performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Nov;40(3):239–251. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Collier G., Hirsch E., Hamlin P. H. The ecological determinants of reinforcement in the rat. Physiol Behav. 1972 Nov-Dec;9(5):705–716. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(72)90038-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edmon E. L. Multiple schedule component duration: a reanalysis of Shimp and Wheatley (1971) and Todorov (1972). J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Sep;30(2):239–241. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Elliffe D., Davison M. Performance in continuously available multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Nov;44(3):343–353. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Hunger and contrast in a multiple schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):511–517. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-511. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hursh S. R. Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Sep;34(2):219–238. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Killeen P. A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):13–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McSweeney F. K., Farmer V. A., Dougan J. D., Whipple J. E. The generalized matching law as a description of multiple-schedule responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jan;45(1):83–101. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Menlove R. L. Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 May;23(3):309–337. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Merigan W. H., Miller J. S., Gollub L. R. Short-component multiple schedules: effects of relative reinforcement duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Sep;24(2):183–189. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shimp C. P., Wheatley K. L. Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar;15(2):205–210. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Silberberg A., Schrot J. A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules: the relationship between component duration and responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):21–30. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Spealman R. D. Interactions in multiple schedules: the role of the stimulus-reinforcer contingency. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jul;26(1):79–93. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Todorov J. C. Component duration and relative response rates in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jan;17(1):45–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- White K. G., Pipe M. E., McLean A. P., Redman S. Temporal proximity and reinforcement sensitivity in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Sep;44(2):207–215. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams B. A. Another look at contrast in multiple schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Mar;39(2):345–384. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]