Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1985 Jan;43(1):75–81. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-75

Matching and maximizing with variable-time schedules.

L T DeCarlo
PMCID: PMC1348096  PMID: 3981085

Abstract

Pigeons were offered choices between a variable-time schedule that arranged reinforcers throughout the session and a variable-time schedule that arranged reinforcers only when the pigeon was spending time on it. The subjects could maximize the overall rate of reinforcement in this situation by biasing their time allocation towards the latter schedule. This arrangement provides an alternative to concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules for testing whether animals maximize overall rates or match relative rates, and has the advantage of being free of the asymmetrical response requirements present with those schedules. The results were contrary to those predicted by maximizing: The bias it predicts did not appear.

Full text

PDF
75

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Baum W. M. Time allocation in human vigilance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jan;23(1):45–53. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baum W. M. Time-based and count-based measurement of preference. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jul;26(1):27–35. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.26-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brownstein A. J., Pliskoff S. S. Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):683–688. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. Green L., Rachlin H., Hanson J. Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Nov;40(3):217–224. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. Vaughan W. Melioration, matching, and maximization. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):141–149. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES