Abstract
Pigeons were exposed to two types of concurrent operant-reinforcement schedules in order to determine what choice rules determine behavior on these schedules. In the first set of experiments, concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to either of two alternative schedules produced food reinforcement after a random time interval. The frequency of food-reinforcement availability for the two schedules was varied over different ranges for different birds. In the second series of experiments, concurrent variable-ratio, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to one schedule produced food reinforcement after a random time interval, whereas food reinforcement occurred for an alternative schedule only after a random number of responses. Results from both experiments showed that pigeons consistently follow a behavioral strategy in which the alternative schedule chosen at any time is the one which offers the highest momentary reinforcement probability (momentary maximizing). The quality of momentary maximizing was somewhat higher and more consistent when both alternative reinforcement schedules were time-based than when one schedule was time-based and the alternative response-count based. Previous attempts to provide evidence for the existence of momentary maximizing were shown to be based upon faulty assumptions about the behavior implied by momentary maximizing and resultant inappropriate measures of behavior.
Keywords: concurrent schedules, optimal behavior, momentary maximizing, strategies, variable-interval, variable-ratio, key peck, pigeons
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Blough D. S. Interresponse time as a function of continuous variables: a new method and some data. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6(2):237–246. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-237. [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]
- FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):107–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Shimp C. P. Probabilistically reinforced choice behavior in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jul;9(4):443–455. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Staddon J. E., Hinson J. M., Kram R. Optimal choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 May;35(3):397–412. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]