Conditioned reinforcement value and choice.

The delay-reduction hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement states that the reinforcing value of a food-associated stimulus is determined by the delay to primary reinforcement signaled by the onset of the stimulus relative to the average delay to primary reinforcement in the conditioning situation. In contrast, most contemporary models of conditioned reinforcement strength posit that the reinforcing strength of a stimulus is some simple function only of the delay to primary reinforcement in the presence of stimulus. The delay-reduction hypothesis diverges from other conditioned reinforcement models in that it predicts that a fixed-duration food-paired stimulus will have different reinforcing values depending on the frequency of its presentation. In Experiment 1, pigeons' key pecks were reinforced according to concurrent-chains schedules with variable-interval 10-second and variable-interval 20-second terminal-link schedules. The initial-link schedule preceding the shorter terminal link was always variable-interval 60 seconds, and the initial-link schedule requirement preceding the longer terminal link was varied between 1 second and 60 seconds across conditions. In Experiment 2, the initial-link schedule preceding the longer of two terminal links was varied for each of three groups of pigeons. The terminal links of the concurrent chains for the three groups were variable-interval 10 seconds and 20 seconds, variable-interval 10 seconds and 30 seconds, and variable-interval 30 seconds and 50 seconds. In both experiments, preference for the shorter terminal link was either a bitonic function or an inverse function of the initial-link schedule preceding the longer terminal-link schedule. Consistent with the predictions of the delay-reduction hypothesis, the relative values of the terminal-link stimuli changed as a function of the overall frequency of primary reinforcement. Vaughan's (1985) melioration model, which was shown to be formally similar to Squires and Fantino's (1971) delay-reduction model, can be modified so as to predict these results without changing its underlying assumptions.     

Choice and conditioned reinforcement.

A potential weakness of one formulation of delay-reduction theory is its failure to include a term for rate of conditioned reinforcement, that is, the rate at which the terminal-link stimuli occur in concurrent-chains schedules. The present studies assessed whether or not rate of conditioned reinforcement has an independent effect upon choice. Pigeons responded on either modified concurrent-chains schedules or on comparable concurrent-tandem schedules. The initial link was shortened on only one of two concurrent-chains schedules and on only one of two corresponding concurrent-tandem schedules. This manipulation increased rate of conditioned reinforcement sharply in the chain but not in the tandem schedule. According to a formulation of delay-reduction theory, when the outcomes chosen (the terminal links) are equal, as in Experiment 1, choice should depend only on rate of primary reinforcement; thus, choice should be equivalent for the tandem and chain schedules despite a large difference in rate of conditioned reinforcement. When the outcomes chosen are unequal, however, as in Experiment 2, choice should depend upon both rate of primary reinforcement and relative signaled delay reduction; thus, larger preferences should occur in the chain than in the tandem schedules. These predictions were confirmed, suggesting that increasing the rate of conditioned reinforcement on concurrent-chains schedules may have no independent effect on choice.     

Choice behavior in transition: development of preference for the higher probability of reinforcement.

Ten acquisition curves were obtained from each of 4 pigeons in a two-choice discrete-trial procedure. In each of these 10 conditions, the two response keys initially had equal probabilities of reinforcement, and subjects' choice responses were about equally divided between the two keys. Then the reinforcement probabilities were changed so that one key had a higher probability of reinforcement (the left key in half of the conditions and the right key in the other half), and in nearly every case the subjects developed a preference for this key. The rate of acquisition of preference for this key was faster when the ratio of the two reinforcement probabilities was higher. For instance, acquisition of preference was faster in conditions with reinforcement probabilities of .12 and .02 than in conditions with reinforcement probabilities of .40 and .30, even though the pairs of probabilities differed by .10 in both cases. These results were used to evaluate the predictions of some theories of transitional behavior in choice situations. A trial-by-trial analysis of individual responses and reinforcers suggested that reinforcement had both short-term and long-term effects on choice. The short-term effect was an increased probability of returning to the same key on the one or two trials following a reinforcer. The long-term effect was a gradual increase in the proportion of responses on the key with the higher probability of reinforcement, an increase that usually continued for several hundred trials.     

Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding

The duration and frequency of food presentation were varied in concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In the first experiment, in which pigeons were exposed to a succession of eight different schedules, neither relative duration nor relative frequency of reinforcement had as great an effect on response distribution as they have when they are manipulated separately. These results supported those previously reported by Todorov (1973) and Schneider (1973). In a second experiment, each of seven pigeons was exposed to only one concurrent schedule in which the frequency and/or duration of reinforcement differed on the two keys. Under these conditions, each pigeon's relative rate of response closely matched the relative total access to food that each schedule provided. This result suggests that previous failures to obtain matching may be due to factors such as an insufficient length of exposure to each schedule or to the pigeons' repeated exposure to different concurrent schedules.     

Effects of reinforcement context on choice

Two experiments investigated the effects of successive reinforcement contexts on choice. In the first, concurrent variable-interval schedules of primary reinforcement operated during the initial links of concurrent chains. The rate of this reinforcement arranged by the concurrent schedules was decreased across conditions: When it was higher than the terminal-link rate, preference for the higher frequency initial-link schedule increased relative to baseline. (During baseline, a standard concurrent-schedule procedure was in effect). When the initial-link reinforcement rate was lower than the terminal-link rate, preference converged toward indifference. In the second experiment, a chain schedule was available on a third key while a concurrent schedule was in effect on the side keys. When the terminal link of the chain schedule was produced, the side keys became inoperative. Availability of the chain schedule did not affect choice between the concurrent schedules. These results show that only when successive reinforcement contexts are produced by choice responding do those successive contexts affect choice in concurrent schedules.     

Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement

Preference for constant and mixed delay of reinforcement was studied using concurrent equal variable-interval schedules. For four pigeons, pecking one key was reinforced following constant delays of 8 sec and mixed delays of 6 or 10 and 2 or 14 sec. Pecking a second key was reinforced following constant delays of 0, 8, 16, and 32 sec. For two additional pigeons, pecking one key was reinforced following delays of 30, 15 or 45, 5 or 55, and 0 or 60 sec. Reinforcements on the other key were delayed 30 sec. It was found that (a) pigeons preferred mixed relative to constant delay of reinforcement, and (b) preference for mixed delay of reinforcement increased as the range of delay interval variability increased.     

Maximizing versus matching on concurrent variable-interval schedules

Maximization and matching predictions were examined for a time-based analogue of the concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedule. One alternative was a variable interval whose time base operated relatively independent of the schedule chosen, and the other was a discontinuous variable interval for which timing progressed only when selected. Pigeons switched between schedules by pecking a changeover key. The maximization hypothesis predicts that subjects will show a bias toward the discontinuous variable interval and undermatching; however the obtained results conformed closely to the predictions of the matching law. Finally, a quantitative comparison was made of the bias and sensitivity estimates obtained in published concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio analogue studies. Results indicated that only the ratio-based analogue of the concurrent variable interval variable ratio studied by Green, Rachlin, and Hanson (1983) produced significant bias toward the variable-ratio alternative and undermatching, as predicted by reinforcement maximization.     

Melloration and maximization of reinforcement minus costs of behavior

Eight pigeons were exposed to independent concurrent schedules. Concurrent variable-interval 60-second variable-interval 60-second schedules were presented to one group of four subjects. Following baseline training, a limited hold was added to one of the schedules and the duration of the hold was decreased in successive conditions. Concurrent variable-interval 120-second variable-interval 40-second schedules were presented to another group of four subjects. These subjects were first exposed to decreasing durations of a limited hold in the variable-interval 40-second component. After replication of the baseline, a limited hold in the variable-interval 120-second component was decreased in duration. The initial durations of the holds were determined from the subjects' responding in the baseline conditions. A duration was chosen such that approximately 25% of the scheduled reinforcers would be canceled if responding remained unchanged.

Approximate matching of time proportions and reinforcement proportions was observed when the limited hold was added to the variable-interval 60-second schedule and when the limited hold was added to the variable-interval 40-second schedule. Time proportions were less extreme than reinforcement proportions when the limited hold operated in a variable-interval 120-second schedule. Overall reinforcement rates tended to decrease with continued training in concurrent schedules with a limited hold. Absolute deviations from time matching also decreased. The results provide evidence against the principle of reinforcement maximization, and support Herrnstein and Vaughan's (1980) melioration hypothesis.

     

Conditioned reinforcement versus time to reinforcement in chain schedules.

Pigeons were trained on three-component chain schedules in which the initial component was either a fixed-interval or variable-interval schedule. The middle and terminal components were varied among fixed-interval fixed-interval, variable-interval variable-interval, and an interdependent variable-interval variable-interval schedule in which the sum of the durations of the two variable-interval components was always equal to the sum of the fixed-interval fixed-interval components. At issue was whether the response rate in the initial component was controlled by its time to primary reinforcement or by the temporal parameters of the stimulus correlated with the middle terminal link. The fixed-interval initial-link schedule maintained much lower response rates than the variable-interval initial-link schedule regardless of the schedules in the middle and terminal links. Nevertheless, the intervening schedules played some role: With fixed-interval schedules in the initial links, response rates were consistently highest with independent variable-interval schedules in the middle and terminal links and intermediate with the interdependent variable-interval schedules; these initial-link differences were predicted by the response rates in the middle link of the chain. With variable-interval schedules in the initial links, response rates were lowest with the fixed-interval fixed-interval schedules following the initial link and were not systematically different for the two types of variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The results suggest that time to reinforcement itself accounts for little if any variance in initial-link responding.     

Preference between variable-ratio and fixed-ratio schedules: local and extended relations.

Although it has repeatedly been demonstrated that pigeons, as well as other species, will often choose a variable schedule of reinforcement over an equivalent (or even richer) fixed schedule, the exact nature of that controlling relation has yet to be fully assessed. In this study pigeons were given repeated choices between concurrently available fixed-ratio and variable-ratio schedules. The fixed-ratio requirement (30 responses) was constant throughout the experiment, whereas the distribution of individual ratios making up the variable-ratio schedule changed across phases: The smallest and largest of these components were varied gradually, with the mean variable-ratio requirement constant at 60 responses. The birds' choices of the variable-ratio schedule tracked the size of the smallest variable-ratio component. A minimum variable-ratio component at or near 1 produced strong preference for the variable-ratio schedule, whereas increases in the minimum variable-ratio component resulted in reduced preference for the variable-ratio schedule. The birds' behavior was qualitatively consistent with Mazur's (1984) hyperbolic model of delayed reinforcement and could be described as approximate maximizing with respect to reinforcement value.     

Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule of reinforcement in which separate concurrent schedules occurred in each of two components. Key pecking was reinforced with milo. During one component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 20-s schedule; during the other component, a variable-interval 40-s schedule was concurrent with a variable-interval 80-s schedule. During probe tests, the stimuli correlated with the two variable-interval 40-s schedules were presented simultaneously to assess preference, measured by the relative response rates to the two stimuli. In Experiment 1, the concurrently available variable-interval 20-s schedule operated normally; that is, reinforcer availability was not signaled. Following this baseline training, relative response rate during the probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the lower valued schedule (i.e., with the variable-interval 80-s schedule). In Experiment 2, a signal for reinforcer availability was added to the high-value alternative (i.e., to the variable-interval 20-s schedule), thus reducing the rate of key pecking maintained by that schedule but leaving the reinforcement rate unchanged. Following that baseline training, relative response rates during probes favored the variable-interval 40-s alternative that had been paired with the higher valued schedule. The reversal in the pattern of preference implies that the pattern of changeover behavior established during training, and not reinforcement rate, determined the preference patterns obtained on the probe tests.     

Choice and delay of reinforcement: Effects of terminal-link stimulus and response conditions

In two experiments, pigeons were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules in which a single initial-link variable-interval schedule led to access to terminal links composed of fixed-interval or fixed-delay schedules. In Experiment 1, an 8-s (or 16-s) delay to reinforcement was associated with the standard key, while reinforcer delay values associated with the experimental key were varied from 4 to 32 s. The results of Experiment 1 showed undermatching of response ratios to delay ratios with terminal-link fixed-delay schedules, whereas in some pigeons matching or overmatching was evident with the fixed-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, one pair of reinforcer delay values, either 8 versus 16 s or 16 versus 32 s, was used. In the first condition of Experiment 2, different delays were associated with different keylight stimuli (cued condition). In the second condition, different terminal-link delays were associated with the same stimulus, either a blackout (uncued-blackout condition) or a white key (uncued-white condition). To examine the role of responses emitted during delays, the keys were retracted during a delay (key-absent condition) in the third condition and responses were required by a fixed-interval schedule in the fourth condition. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the choice proportions for the shorter delay were more extreme in the cued condition than in the uncued-blackout condition, and that the response requirement imposed by the fixed-interval schedules did not affect choice of the shorter delay, nor did the key-absent and key-present conditions. These results indicate that the keylight-stimulus conditions affected preference for the shorter of two delays and that the findings obtained in Experiment 1 depended mainly on the keylight-stimulus conditions of the terminal links (i.e., the conditioned reinforcing value of the terminal-link stimuli).     

Preference for conditioned reinforcement.

Pigeons were presented with a concurrent-chains schedule in which both choice alternatives led to the same terminal-link stimulus, which was followed by food. Superimposed on the food-reinforced presentations of the terminal-link stimulus was a second schedule of presentations of the same stimulus that were followed by no food. The absolute number of these no-food stimulus presentations was held constant while their relative frequency assigned to one or the other choice alternative was systematically varied. Preference for a given choice alternative tracked the relative frequency of these stimulus presentations, thus demonstrating that they served as reinforcers. These results resolve conflicts in the literature regarding the effect of conditioned reinforcement on choice.     

Choice, changing over, and reinforcement delays

In three experiments, pigeons were used to examine the independent effects of two normally confounded delays to reinforcement associated with changing between concurrently available variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In Experiments 1 and 2, combinations of changeover-delay durations and fixed-interval travel requirements were arranged in a changeover-key procedure. The delay from a changeover-produced stimulus change to a reinforcer was varied while the delay between the last response on one alternative and a reinforcer on the other (the total obtained delay) was held constant. Changeover rates decreased as a negative power function of the total obtained delay. The delay between a changeover-produced stimulus change had a small and inconsistent effect on changeover rates. In Experiment 3, changeover delays and fixed-interval travel requirements were arranged independently. Changeover rates decreased as a negative power function of the total obtained delay despite variations in the delay from a change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer. Periods of high-rate responding following a changeover, however, were higher near the end of the delay from a change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer. The results of these experiments suggest that the effects of changeover delays and travel requirements primarily result from changes in the delay between a response at one alternative and a reinforcer at the other, but the pattern of responding immediately after a changeover depends on the delay from a changeover-produced change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer.     

Preference for signaled versus unsignaled reinforcement delay in concurrent-chain schedules

A concurrent-chain schedule was employed to examine pigeons' preferences for signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement in which the delay durations ranged from zero to ten seconds. In general, pigeons preferred signaled delay over unsignaled delay especially when a variable-interval 30-second schedule operated in each initial link; when a variable-interval 90-second schedule operated in each initial link, these preferences tended toward indifference or were attenuated. In addition, prior training seemed to exert partial control over behavior. Responding in the terminal link was higher under signaled delay than unsignaled delay in a majority of the cases. Moreover, response rates under signaled delay remained fairly constant whereas responding under unsignaled delay was initially high, but decreased systematically with delay durations as short as 2.5 seconds. These results are consistent with a number of other studies demonstrating the significant role of a signal for impending positive stimuli.     

Interresponse-time shaping by variable-interval-like interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies

The interresponse-time reinforcement contingencies and distributions of interreinforcement intervals characteristic of certain variable-interval schedules were mimicked by reinforcing each key peck with a probability equal to the duration of the interresponse time it terminated, divided by the scheduled mean interreinforcement interval. The interresponse-time reinforcement contingency was then eliminated by basing the probability of reinforcement on the fifth interresponse time preceding the key peck. Even though distributions of interreinforcement intervals were unaffected by this manipulation, response rates consistently increased. A second experiment replicated this effect and showed it to combine additively with that of mean reinforcement rate. These results provide strong support for the contention that current analyses of variable-interval response rates that ignore the inherent interresponse-time reinforcement contingency may be seriously in error.     

Reporting contingencies of reinforcement in concurrent schedules

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in which two intensities of yellow light served as discriminative stimuli in a switching-key procedure. A conditional discrimination involving a simultaneous choice between red and green keys followed every reinforcer obtained from both alternatives. A response to the red side key was occasionally reinforced if the prior reinforcer had been obtained from the bright alternative, and a response to the green side key was occasionally reinforced if the prior reinforcer had been obtained from the dim alternative. Measures of the discriminability between the concurrent-schedule alternatives were obtained by varying the reinforcer ratio for correct red and correct green responses across conditions in two parts. Part 1 arranged equal rates of reinforcement in the concurrent schedule, and Part 2 provided a 9:1 concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio. Part 3 arranged a 1:9 reinforcer ratio in the conditional discrimination, and the concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio was varied across conditions. Varying the conditional discrimination reinforcer ratio did not affect response allocation in the concurrent schedule, but varying the concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio did affect conditional discrimination performance. These effects were incompatible with a contingency-discriminability model of concurrent-schedule performance (Davison & Jenkins, 1985), which implies a constant discriminability parameter that is independent of the obtained reinforcer ratio. However, a more detailed analysis of conditional discrimination performance showed that the discriminability between the concurrent-schedule alternatives decreased with time since changing over to an alternative. This effect, combined with aspects of the temporal distribution of reinforcers obtained in the concurrent schedules, qualitatively predicted the molar results and identified the conditions that operate whenever contingency discriminability remains constant.     

Transfer tests of stimulus value in concurrent chains

We report two experiments that use transfer tests to investigate whether in concurrent chains the value of a terminal-link stimulus is affected by the alternate terminal link. In Experiment 1, two groups of pigeons were trained on multiple concurrent-chains schedules in which switching between the schedules was via pecking a changeover key. For one group, the terminal links were fixed-interval 8 s versus fixed-interval 16 s in one component and fixed-interval 16 s versus fixed-interval 32 s in the other component. For a second group, the terminal links were variable-interval 10 s versus variable-interval 20 s in one component and variable-interval 20 s versus variable-interval 40 s in the other. After sufficient baseline training had been given so that performances had stabilized, transfer tests were conducted in which the two chains with equal terminal-link schedules were presented together as a new concurrent pair. For 6 of the 7 subjects, initial-link responding changed fairly rapidly during the test in the manner predicted if the values of the terminal links were equal. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on multiple concurrent chains using a two-key procedure, and the terminal links were the same variable-interval schedules as in Experiment 1. After baseline training, transfer tests were conducted that assessed (a) the relative reinforcing strength of the terminal-link stimuli in a novel initial-link situation and (b) the relative ability of those stimuli to evoke responding. The data from the reinforcing strength test were consistent with those from Experiment 1, but those from the evocation strength test were not. Although this discrepancy shows that responding in transfer tests is not solely a function of stimulus value, the results from both experiments suggest, overall, that value is determined by the stimulus—reinforcer relation independently of the alternative terminal link.     

Choice between fixed-interval schedules: Graded versus step-like choice functions

Pigeons chose between two fixed-interval schedules of food reinforcement. A single peck on one of two lighted keys started the fixed-interval schedule correlated with that key. The schedule had to be completed before the next choice opportunity. The durations of the fixed intervals were varied over conditions from 15 s to 40 s. To maximize the rate of reinforcement, the pigeons had to choose exclusively the shorter of the two schedules. Nevertheless, choice was not all-or-none. Instead, relative choice, and the rates of producing the fixed intervals, varied in a graded fashion with the disparity between the two schedules. Choice ratios under this procedure (single response to choose) were highly sensitive to the ratios of the fixed-interval schedules.     

Molar optimization versus delayed reinforcement as explanations of choice between fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules.

In a discrete-trials procedure, pigeons chose between a fixed-ratio 81 schedule and a progressive-ratio schedule by making a single peck at the key correlated with one or the other of these schedules. The response requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule began at 1 and increased by 10 each time the progressive-ratio schedule was chosen. Each time the fixed-ratio schedule was chosen, the requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule was reset to 1 response. In conditions where there was no intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about five consecutive trials (during which the response requirement increased to 41), and then chose the fixed-ratio schedule. This ratio was larger than that predicted by an optimality analysis that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that minimizes the response-reinforcer ratio or one that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that maximizes the overall rate of reinforcement. In conditions with a 25-s or 50-s intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about eight consecutive trials before choosing the fixed-ratio schedule. This change in performance with the addition of an intertrial interval was also not predicted by an optimality analysis. On the other hand, the results were consistent with the theory that choice is determined by the delays to the reinforcers delivered on the present trial and on subsequent trials.