Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1983 Jul;40(1):79–98. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-79

Local rates of responding and reinforcement during concurrent schedules

Frances K McSweeney, Cam L Melville, Michael A Buck, J E Whipple
PMCID: PMC1347846  PMID: 16812339

Abstract

The literature was searched for information about the local rates of responding and reinforcement during concurrent schedules. The local rates of reinforcement obtained from the two components of a concurrent schedule were equal when a long-duration changeover delay was used and when many sessions were conducted, except when the two components provided different simple schedules. The local rates of responding were equal under some conditions, but they differed when one component provided a ratio and the other an interval schedule. Across schedules, local rates of reinforcement changed with changes in the schedule of reinforcement. Local rates of responding did not change with changes in change-over-delay duration but did with changes in the changeover ratio and with changes in the programmed rates of reinforcement. The results generally conform to the Equalizing and Melioration Principles and help to clarify current statements of the Matching Law. The results also suggest that changes in the local rates of responding and reinforcement may be orderly across schedules.

Keywords: local rates of responding, local rates of reinforcement, equalizing, melioration, undermatching, bias, concurrent schedules

Full text

PDF

Selected References

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

  1. Allison T. S., Lloyd K. E. Concurrent schedules of reinforcement: effects of gradual and abrupt increases in changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jul;16(1):67–73. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bacotti A. V. Matching under concurrent fixed-ratio variable-interval schedules of food presentation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):171–182. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Beale I. L., Winton A. S. Inhibitory stimulus control in concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Sep;14(2):133–137. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.14-133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Davison M. C., Hunter I. W. Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 May;25(3):335–345. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davison M., Ferguson A. The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):283–295. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Herrnstein R. J., Heyman G. M. Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable interval variable ratio? J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Mar;31(2):209–223. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Heyman G. M. A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):41–51. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hollard V., Davison M. C. Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Nov;16(3):375–380. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Labounty C. E., Reynolds G. S. An analysis of response and time matching to reinforcement in concurrent ratio-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):155–166. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Leigland S. M. Deviations from matching as a measure of preference for alternatives in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jul;32(1):1–13. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lobb B., Davison M. C. Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Sep;24(2):191–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Marcucella H., Margolius G. Time allocation in concurrent schedules: the effect of signalled reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):419–430. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Matthews L. R., Temple W. Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):245–254. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Miller H. L. Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Nov;26(3):335–347. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Mullins E., Agunwamba C. C., Donohoe A. J. On the analysis of studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Mar;37(2):323–327. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Myers D. L., Myers L. E. Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):203–214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Nevin J. A. Rates and patterns of responding with concurrent fixed-interval and variable-interval reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Sep;16(2):241–247. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Norman W. D., McSweeney F. K. Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):453–462. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pliskoff S. S., Cicerone R., Nelson T. D. Local response-rate constancy on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):431–446. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Pliskoff S. S. Effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical changeover delays on concurrent performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Sep;16(2):249–256. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pliskoff S. S., Fetterman J. G. Undermatching and overmatching: The fixed-ratio changeover requirement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Jul;36(1):21–27. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rider D. P. Concurrent fixed-interval variable-ratio schedules and the matching relation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Nov;36(3):317–328. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rider D. P. Concurrent ratio schedules: Fixed vs. variable response requirements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Mar;31(2):225–237. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Shull R. L., Pliskoff S. S. Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1967 Nov;10(6):517–527. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1967.10-517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. 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]
  30. Stubbs D. A., Pliskoff S. S. Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):887–895. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Trevett A. J., Davison M. C., Williams R. J. Performance in concurrent interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 May;17(3):369–374. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wearden J. H., Burgess I. S. Matching since Baum (1979). J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Nov;38(3):339–348. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wheatley K. L., Engberg L. A. Choice performance in several concurrent key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Mar;29(2):181–190. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. White A. J., Davison M. C. Performance in concurrent fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jan;19(1):147–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. White J. M. Changeover ratio effects on concurrent variable-interval performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Mar;31(2):239–252. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Willis R. D., Van Hartesveldt C., Loken K. K., Hall D. C. Motivation in concurrent variable-interval schedules with food and water reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):323–331. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-323. [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