Abstract
Pigeons were run in both single-key and concurrent-key experiments in which, over most of the range of response rates, an increase in response rate gave rise to a continuous decrease in reinforcement rate. In spite of the fact that a low response rate would have produced a high reinforcement rate, all birds responded at relatively high rates, thus keeping reinforcement rates substantially below the maximum possible. In the concurrent-key experiment, in addition to responding at relatively high rates, the birds' ratios of responses approximately matched the corresponding ratios of obtained reinforcers. The results are inconsistent with most theories of optimal performance, which assume that organisms behave in ways that either maximize reinforcement value or minimize deviations from a free-behavior point. On the other hand, the results are consistent with the assumption that reinforcement strengthens the tendency to respond.
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. Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Nov;36(3):387–403. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Baum W. M. The correlation-based law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Jul;20(1):137–153. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eisenberger R., Karpman M., Trattner J. What is the necessary and sufficient condition for reinforcement in the contingency situation? J Exp Psychol. 1967 Jul;74(3):342–350. doi: 10.1037/h0024719. [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. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Mazur J. E. Optimization theory fails to predict performance of pigeons in a two-response situation. Science. 1981 Nov 13;214(4522):823–825. doi: 10.1126/science.7292017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- PREMACK D. Toward empirical behavior laws. I. positive reinforcement. Psychol Rev. 1959 Jul;66(4):219–233. doi: 10.1037/h0040891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rachlin H. A molar theory of reinforcement schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Nov;30(3):345–360. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.30-345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Staddon J. E., Hinson J. M. Optimization: a result or a mechanism? Science. 1983 Sep 2;221(4614):976–977. doi: 10.1126/science.6879199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ziriax J. M., Silberberg A. Concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules can provide only weak evidence for matching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Jan;41(1):83–100. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.41-83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]