The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 227–238 | Cite as

Choice with Concurrent Interval Schedules of Reinforcement: The Effects of Different Timing Procedures

  • Michael J. Boivin
Articles

Abstract

Using a Findley changeover procedure, two groups of rats were exposed to various concurrent variable-time (VT) schedules of milk presentation. The rules governing the operation of the timers for the stimulus events differed for the two groups with resulting differences in the overall degree of changeover responding but not with respect to time allocation measures, which in both cases consisted of undermatching. When an interrupted VT reinforcement timer was reset upon re-entry of that component, the rats tended to emit changeover responses almost exclusively to the more favorable component. When the VT reinforcement timers were left running regardless of which components the rats selected, changeover responses were significantly more frequent and equally distributed among both the more and less favorable components. In comparing the present results with those from a similar procedure in which shock was used (Deluty & Church, 1978), it is apparent that what is basic to choice in concurrent interval schedules is not matching or some mathematical variation of it. Instead, it is a tendency to optimize on the basis of the favorability of the stimulus events and the contingencies regarding how those events are timed and administered.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BAUM, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BAUM, W. M. (1975). Time allocation in human vigilance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BRADSHAW, C. M., SZABADI, E., BEVAN, P., & RUDDLE, H. V. (1979). The effect of signaled reinforcement availability on concurrent performances in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BROWNSTEIN, A. J., & PLISKOFF, S. S. (1968). Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 683–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CATANIA, A. C. (1963a). Concurrent performances: Reinforcement interaction and response independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CATANIA, A. C. (1963b). Concurrent performances: A baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 299–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CHUNG, S. H., & HERRNSTEIN, R. J. (1967). Choice and delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DECARLO, L. T. (1985). Matching and maximizing with variable-time schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DELUTY, M. Z., & CHURCH, R. M. (1978). Time-allocation matching between punishing situations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DE VILLIERS, P. (1977). Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In W. K. Honig & J. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 233–287). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. FANTINO, E., SQUIRES, N., DELBRUCK, N., & PETERSON, C. (1972). Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FINDLEY, J. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. GREEN, L., RACHLIN, H., & HANSON, J. (1983). Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. HERRNSTEIN, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. HERRNSTEIN, R. J. (1974). Formal properties of the matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. HOLLARD, V., & DAVISON, M. C. (1971). Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. HOUSTON, A. I., & MCNAMARA, J. (1981). How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 367–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MYERS, D. L, & MYERS, M. E. (1977). Undermatching: A reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NEVIN, J. A. (1969). Interval reinforcement of choice behavior in discrete trials. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 875–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. PLISKOFF, S. S., & FETTERMAN, J. G. (1981). Undermatching and overmatching: The fixed-ratio changeover requirement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. SHULL, R. L, & PLISKOFF, S. S. (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: Some effects on relative performance measures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SNAPPER, A. G., STEPHENS, K. R., COBEZ, R. I., & VANHAAREN, F. (1976). The Sked Software System-Manual 2: OS/8 and Time-Share SKED. The SKED Users Group, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Google Scholar
  23. STADDON, J. E. R., & MOTHERAL, S. (1978). On matching and maximizing in operant choice experiments. Psychological Review, 85, 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. STUBBS, D. A., PLISKOFF, S. S., & REID, H. M. (1977). Concurrent schedules: A quantitative relation between changeover behavior and its consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Boivin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySpring Arbor CollegeSpring ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations