Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1985 Jul;44(1):89–101. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-89

Preference for unsegmented interreinforcement intervals in concurrent chains

Jin-Pang Leung, Alan S W Winton
PMCID: PMC1348163  PMID: 16812428

Abstract

Five pigeons were trained under concurrent-chain schedules in which a pair of independent, concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules were presented in the initial link and either both variable-interval or both fixed-interval schedules were presented in the terminal link. Except for the baseline, one of the terminal-link schedules was always a two-component chained schedule and the other was either a simple or a tandem schedule of equal mean interreinforcement interval. The values of the fixed-interval schedules were either 15 s or 60 s; that of the variable-interval schedules was always 60 s. A 1.5-s changeover delay operated during the initial link in some conditions. The pigeons preferred a simple or a tandem schedule to a chain. For the fixed-interval schedules, this preference was greater when the fixed interval was 60 s than when it was 15 s. For the variable-interval schedules, the preferences were less pronounced and occurred only when the changeover delay was in effect. For a given type of schedule and interreinforcement interval, similar preferences were obtained whether the nonchained schedule was a tandem or simple schedule. The changeover delay generally inflated preference and lowered the changeover rate, especially when the terminal-link schedules were either short (15 s) or aperiodic (variable-interval). The results were consistent with the notion that segmenting the interreinforcement interval of a schedule into a chain lowers the preference for it.

Keywords: preference, segmentation, concurrent chains, interreinforcement interval, changeover delay, chained interval schedule, simple interval schedule, key peck, pigeons

Full text

PDF
89

Selected References

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

  1. Catania A. C., Yohalem R., Silverman P. J. Contingency and stimulus change in chained schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Mar;33(2):213–219. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.33-213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Davison M. C. Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Mar;12(2):247–252. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Davison M. C. Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules: number of component intervals. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Mar;17(2):169–176. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.17-169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Davison M. Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jul;40(1):15–34. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Duncan B., Fantino E. The psychological distance to reward. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):23–34. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Fantino E. Choice and rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):723–730. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fantino E. Effects of required rates of responding upon choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Jan;11(1):15–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. HERRNSTEIN R. J. APERIODICITY AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Mar;7:179–182. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-179. [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. SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Jan;7:27–36. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Killeen P. R. Incentive theory: II. Models for choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Sep;38(2):217–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Marcattilio A. J., Richards R. W. Preference for signaled versus unsignaled reinforcement delay in concurrent-chain schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):221–229. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Navarick D. J., Fantino E. Transitivity as a property of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Nov;18(3):389–401. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Navarick D. J. Free-operant choice behavior: A molecular analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):213–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Neuringer A. J. Delayed reinforcement versus reinforcement after a fixed interval. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 May;12(3):375–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Neuringer A. J., Schneider B. A. Separating the effects of interreinforcement time and number of interreinforcement responses. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Nov;11(6):661–667. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Schneider J. W. Choice between two-component chained and tandem schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):45–60. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schroeder S. R., Holland J. G. Reinforcement of eye movement with concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Nov;12(6):897–903. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Squires N., Fantino E. A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jan;15(1):27–38. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-27. [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