Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1983 Mar;39(2):275–291. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-275

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

Michael D Zeiler, Thomas F Blakely
PMCID: PMC1347921  PMID: 16812320

Abstract

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.

Keywords: conjoint schedules, concurrent schedules, matching law, DRL schedules, random-interval schedules, clock stimulus, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
275

Selected References

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

  1. APPEL J. B. Aversive aspects of a schedule of positive reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jul;6:423–428. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-423. [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. Davison M. Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):81–96. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Decasper A. J., Zeiler M. D. Time limits for completing fixed ratios. III. Stimulus variables. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Sep;22(2):285–300. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Findley J. D. Preference and Switching under Concurrent Scheduling. J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Apr;1(2):123–144. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. McDowell J. J. Wilkinson's method of estimating the parameters of Herrnstein's hyperbola. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 May;35(3):413–414. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moffitt M., Shimp C. P. Two-key concurrent paced variable-interval paced variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jul;16(1):39–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Reynolds G. S. Discrimination and emission of temporal intervals by pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Jan;9(1):65–68. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Reynolds G. S., Limpo A. J. On some causes of behavioral contrast. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Sep;11(5):543–547. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Richardson W. K., Loughead T. E. Behavior under large values of the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):121–129. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Shimp C. P., Hawkes L. Time-allocation, matching, and contrast. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):1–10. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shimp C. P. The concurrent reinforcement of two interresponse times: the relative frequency of an interresponse time equals its relative harmonic length. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 May;12(3):403–411. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Silberberg A., Fantino E. Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):187–197. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Zeiler M. D., Solano J. M. Responses and pauses: discrimination and a choice catastrophe. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Mar;37(2):223–231. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-223. [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