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.     

The role of discriminative stimuli in concurrent performances

Key pecking in pigeons was examined under concurrent and parallel arrangements of two independent and simultaneously available variable-interval schedules. Pecks on the changeover key alternated the schedule of reinforcement for responses on the main key. Under concurrent schedules, discriminative stimuli were paired with the reinforcement schedule arranged in each component and changeover responses also alternated these stimuli. Under parallel schedules, changeover responses alternated the effective reinforcement schedule, but did not change the discriminative stimulus. On concurrent procedures, changeover response rate was inversely related to the difference in reinforcement rate between the two components, whereas on parallel schedules no consistent relationship was found. With both schedules, absolute response and reinforcement rates were positively related, although for a given set of reinforcement frequencies, rates were often higher on the concurrent schedules. On concurrent schedules, relative response rates and relative times were equal to relative reinforcement rates. On parallel schedules these ratios were positively related, but response and time ratios were much smaller than were obtained with comparable concurrent schedules. This inequality was most pronounced when absolute reinforcement frequencies were lowest.     

Effects on concurrent performances of a stimulus correlated with reinforcer availability

A multiple schedule was arranged in which each component consisted of two, concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. A changeover-key procedure was used, and the components of the multiple schedule were distinguished (initially) by the color of the changeover key. During one component of the multiple schedule, the availability of a reinforcer arranged by one of the variable-interval schedules was marked by an exteroceptive stimulus, provided that that variable-interval schedule was not at the time assigned to the main key. During the other component of the multiple schedule, no reinforcer-correlated stimuli were ever presented. During the latter component of the multiple schedule, the distribution of responses and time for the concurrent variable-interval schedules suggested control by the distribution of reinforcements. During the former component, most main-key responses were emitted on the key in the presence of which reinforcer-correlated stimuli were presented. Changeover rate in the presence of that key color was depressed. The discriminative control over the changeover was easily established and was reversible.     

Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules.

Animals exposed to standard concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval schedules could maximize overall reinforcement rate if, in responding, they showed a strong response bias toward the variable-ratio schedule. Tests with the standard schedules have failed to find such a bias and have been widely cited as evidence against maximization as an explanation of animal choice behavior. However, those experiments were confounded in that the value of leisure (behavior other than the instrumental response) partially offsets the value of reinforcement. The present experiment provides another such test using a concurrent procedure in which the confounding effects of leisure were mostly eliminated while the critical aspects of the concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval contingency were maintained: Responding in one component advanced only its ratio schedule while responding in the other component advanced both ratio schedules. The bias toward the latter component predicted by maximization theory was found.     

Signalled reinforcement in multiple and concurrent schedules

Five pigeons were exposed to multiple and concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval reinforcement schedules in which reinforcement availability in one component was never signalled. During certain phases of the experiment, reinforcement availability in the other component was signalled. Behavioral contrast was observed in seven of eight instances when reinforcement availability in the multiple schedules was signalled. Under the concurrent schedules in which reinforcement availability was signalled, the subjects did not always allocate more time to (prefer) the component containing non-signalled reinforcement, as would be predicted by an account of behavioral contrast holding that contrast results from the introduction of a less-preferred condition in one component of a multiple schedule.     

Successive independence and behavioral contrast in a closed economy.

Two pigeons had access to multiple concurrent schedules of reinforcement for 24 hours per day in their home cages. The variable-interval schedules comprising the multiple concurrent schedules were varied across 16 conditions. In three sets of conditions, one schedule was varied while its concurrent alternative and the concurrent schedules in the other component were held constant. Behavioral contrast was observed; that is, as the rate of reinforcement arranged by the varied schedule decreased, response rates on the constant schedules typically increased. These conditions formed part of two larger sets of conditions in which the concurrent schedules in one multiple-schedule component remained constant while the concurrent schedules in the other component were varied. Successive independence was found, in that behavior allocation during the constant component did not vary as a function of the reinforcer ratios in the varied component. Successive independence between components in multiple concurrent schedules is a robust result that occurs in closed economies and under conditions that promote behavioral contrast.     

Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules

The generalized matching law states that the logarithm of the ratio of responses emitted or time spent responding in concurrent variable-interval schedules is a linear function of the logarithm of the ratio of reinforcements obtained. The slope of this relation, sensitivity to reinforcement, varies about 1.0 but has been shown to be different when obtained in different laboratories. The present paper analyzed the results from 18 experiments on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance and showed that response-allocation sensitivity to reinforcement was significantly smaller when arithmetic, rather than exponential, progressions were used to produce variable-interval schedules. There were no differences in time-allocation sensitivity between the two methods of constructing variable-interval schedules. Since the two laboratories have consistently used different methods for constructing variable-interval schedules, the differences in obtained sensitivities to reinforcement are explained. The reanalysis suggests that animals may be sensitive to differences in the distribution of reinforcements in time.     

Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules

Five pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules in three experiments. Experiment 1 used two variable-interval schedules and one fixed-ratio schedule, and the ratio requirement was varied. Using the generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcement was close to 1.0, but performance was biased toward the variable-interval schedule with the lower reinforcement rate. In Experiment 2, which used one variable-interval and one fixed-ratio schedule, the interval schedule was varied. All birds showed sensitivities to reinforcement of less than 1.0 and of less than the values obtained in Experiment 1. The performance was also biased toward the fixed-ratio schedule. Because the generalized matching law could not account for the differences in the data from Experiments 1 and 2, an extension of this law was suggested and successfully tested in Experiment 3. The proposed dual-sensitivity model was also shown to clarify some previously reported results.     

Signalled reinforcement and multiple schedules

The responses of four pigeons were first reinforced in the presence of two different wave-lengths (green and red) on a two-ply multiple schedule with identical variable-interval 3-min schedules of reinforcement associated with each component. While the constant-component reinforcement schedule remained unchanged during the experiment, the schedule associated with the variable component was changed to (1) signalled variable time, (2) unsignalled variable time, or (3) signalled variable interval. The probability with which the availability of the reinforcer was signalled in the variable-interval schedules was either 0.5 or 1.0. Positive contrast occurred in both signalled variable-interval and variable-time schedules, but only when the availability of all the variable-component reinforcers was signalled. Signalling the availability of only 50% of the reinforcers in signalled variable-interval schedules resulted in negative induction. The present data suggest that positive behavioral contrast resulting from signalled reinforcer availability is due to the presence of an extinction-correlated stimulus.     

Arousal, changeover responses, and preference in concurrent schedules

Pigeons were trained on multiple schedules that provided concurrent reinforcement in each of two components. In Experiment 1, one component consisted of a variable-interval (VI) 40-s schedule presented with a VI 20-s schedule, and the other a VI 40-s schedule presented with a VI 80-s schedule. After extended training, probe tests measured preference between the stimuli associated with the two 40-s schedules. Probe tests replicated the results of Belke (1992) that showed preference for the 40-s schedule that had been paired with the 80-s schedule. In a second condition, the overall reinforcer rate provided by the two components was equated by adding a signaled VI schedule to the component with the lower reinforcer rate. Probe results were unchanged. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on alternating concurrent VI 30-s VI 60-s schedules. One schedule provided 2-s access to food and the other provided 6-s access. The larger reinforcer magnitude produced higher response rates and was preferred on probe trials. Rate of changeover responding, however, did not differ as a function of reinforcer magnitude. The present results demonstrate that preference on probe trials is not a simple reflection of the pattern of changeover behavior established during training.     

Allocation of complex, sequential operants on multiple and concurrent schedules of reinforcement

Pigeons could produce food by pecking exactly four times on each of two keys, in any order. In the first experiment, these response sequences were reinforced on a series of multiple schedules of variable-interval reinforcement. In the second experiment, these response sequences were reinforced on a series of concurrent schedules of reinforcement. In both experiments, highly stereotyped response sequences developed. If these response sequences were treated as individual responses, the resulting data conformed to what is typically reported in studies of multiple and concurrent schedules involving individual responses. For example, behavioral contrast was observed with the multiple schedules, and matching was observed with the concurrent schedules. However, schedule manipulation had no effect on within-sequence characteristics of responses like accuracy, stereotypy, or rate. These data constitute further evidence that response sequences can become functional behavioral units.     

Concurrent second-order schedules of reinforcement

Responses on one key (the main key) of a two-key chamber produced food according to a second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval schedule components. A response on a second key (the changeover key) alternated colors on the main key and provided a second independent second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval components. The fixed-interval component on one variable-interval schedule was held constant at 8 sec, while the fixed interval on the other variable-interval schedule was varied from 0 to 32 sec. Under some conditions, a brief stimulus terminated each fixed interval and generated fixed-interval patterns; in other conditions, the brief stimulus was omitted. Relative response rate and relative time deviated substantially from scheduled relative reinforcement rate and, to a lesser extent, from obtained relative reinforcement rate under both brief-stimulus and no-stimulus conditions. Matching was observed with equal components on both schedules; with unequal components, increasingly greater proportions of time and responses than the matching relation would predict were spent on the variable-interval schedule containing the shorter component. Preference for the shorter fixed interval was typically more extreme under brief-stimulus than under no-stimulus schedules. The results limit the extension of the matching relation typically observed under simple concurrent variable-interval schedules to concurrent second-order variable-interval schedules.     

The relation between response rates and reinforcement rates in a multiple schedule

In a multiple schedule, exteroceptive stimuli change when the reinforcement schedule is changed. Each performance in a multiple schedule may be considered concurrent with other behavior. Accordingly, two variable-interval schedules of reinforcement were arranged in a multiple schedule, and a third, common variable-interval schedule was programmed concurrently with each of the first two. A quantitative statement was derived that relates as a ratio the response rates for the first two (multiple) variable-interval schedules. The value of the ratio depends on the rates of reinforcement provided by those schedules and the reinforcement rate provided by the common variable-interval schedule. The following implications of the expression were evaluated in an experiment with pigeons: (a) if the reinforcement rates for the multiple variable-interval schedules are equal, then the ratio of response rates is unity at all reinforcement rates of the common schedule; (b) if the reinforcement rates for the multiple schedules are unequal, then the ratio of response rates increases as the reinforcement rate provided by the common schedule increases; (c) the limit of the ratio is equal to the ratio of the reinforcement rates. Satisfactory confirmation was obtained for the first two implications, but the third was left in doubt.     

Time allocation in concurrent schedules: the effect of signalled reinforcement

The responses of five pigeons were reinforced on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval reinforcement schedules in which changeover key responses changed the stimulus and reinforcement schedules associated with the food key. While the reinforcement availability in one component remained unchanged throughout the experiment, the reinforcement availability in the other component was, during several conditions, signalled by the onset of an additional discriminative stimulus. During unsignalled conditions, both the relative frequency of responding and the relative time spent in each component approximated the obtained relative reinforcement frequency in each component. The effect of signalling reinforcer availability in one component was to (1) reduce responding in the signalled component to near-zero levels, and (2) increase the relative time in the unsignalled component, without a corresponding increase in the obtained relative reinforcement frequency. The magnitude of the increase in relative time in the unsignalled component decreased as the overall frequency of reinforcement increased. This deviation in the matching relation between relative time and the obtained relative reinforcement frequency was eliminated if the overall reinforcement frequency was increased before the signal was introduced and then, without removing the signal, gradually reduced.     

Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule in which separate concurrent schedules were presented in the two components of the schedule. During one component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variable-interval 80-sec schedules operated. In the second component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variable-interval 20-sec schedules operated. After stable baseline performance was obtained in both components, extinction probe choice tests were presented to assess preference between the variable-interval 40-sec schedules from the two components. The variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variable-interval 80-sec schedule was preferred over the variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variable-interval 20-sec schedule. The subjects were also exposed to several resistance-to-change manipulations: (1) prefeeding prior to the experimental session, (2) a free-food schedule added to timeout periods separating components, and (3) extinction. The results indicated that preference and resistance to change do not necessarily covary.     

Changeover ratio effects on concurrent variable-interval performance

Rats' bar-pressing was maintained by concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. A fixed-ratio of pulls on a chain (the changeover ratio) was required for switching between schedules. The first experiment employed equal variable-interval schedules and symmetrical changeover ratios. Increasing these ratios resulted in a decrease in the rate of switching between schedules and an increase in local response rate. In the second experiment, a range of asymmetrical changeover ratios was used with equal variable-interval schedules, and a preference was found for the schedule associated with the larger switching-into ratio. Both the distributions of responses and time between the two schedules deviated from those expected on the basis of obtained reinforcers. In the third experiment, the switching-out-of ratio was dependent on the amount of time spent in a variable-interval 2-minute schedule; a constant ratio permitted switching out of the alternative variable-interval 1-minute schedule. A strong preference was shown for the variable-interval 2-minute schedule. The fourth experiment used equal variable-interval schedules; one changeover ratio was varied while the second remained constant. The results failed to show systematic differences in local response rates immediately after a changeover.     

The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules

Six pigeons were trained on multiple and concurrent schedules. The reinforcement rates were varied systematically (a) when lever pressing was required in one component and key pecking in the successive component; (b) when lever pressing was required in both multiple components; (c) when key pecking was required in both multiple components; and (d) when key pecking was required on one schedule and lever pressing was required on the concurrently-available schedule. Only the absolute level of responding was changed by different response requirements. Analyzed by the generalized matching law, performance under different response requirements resulted in a bias toward key pecking, and the measured response bias was the same in multiple and concurrent schedule arrangements. The bias in time measures obtained from concurrent schedule performance was reliably smaller than the obtained response biases. The sensitivity to reinforcement-rate changes was ordered: concurrent key-lever; multiple key-key; multiple lever-key; and, the least sensitive, multiple lever-lever. The results confirm that requirements of different topographical responses can be handled by the generalized matching law mainly in the bias parameter, but problems for this type of analysis may be caused by the changing sensitivity to reinforcement in multiple schedule performance as response requirements are changed.     

Behavioral contrast of time allocation

Pigeons' standing on a platform produced food reinforcement according to two-component multiple schedules in which either both components consisted of the same variable-interval schedule or one of these was replaced with a component without reinforcement (extinction). The components of the multiple schedule alternated every 30 sec, and were signalled by changes in the color of diffuse overhead illumination. Changing the schedule of one of the components to extinction increased the percentage of time spent on the platform during the unchanged component (behavioral contrast). This result casts doubt on accounts that attribute behavioral contrast to variations in the rate of noninstrumental elicited responses.     

The effects of concurrent responding and reinforcement on behavioral output

Four birds key pecked on concurrent variable-interval one-minute variable-interval four-minute schedules with a two-second changeover delay. Response rates to the variable-interval one-minute key were then reduced by signaling its reinforcer availability and later by providing its reinforcers independently of responding. Each manipulation increased response rates to the variable-interval four-minute key even though relative reinforcement rates were unchanged. In a final phase, eliminating the variable-interval one-minute key and its schedule produced the highest rates of all to the variable-interval four-minute key. These results show that both reinforcement and response rates to one schedule influence response rates to another schedule. These results join those of Guilkey, Shull, & Brownstein (1975) in failing to replicate Catania (1963). Moreover, they violate the predictions of the equation for simple action (de Villiers & Herrnstein, 1976). In terms of a median-rate measure (reciprocal of the median interresponse time), rates to the variable-interval four-minute key were high when responding was not reduced to the variable-interval one-minute key and were low when it was reduced. This rate difference suggests a process difference between concurrent-schedule procedures that maintain high concurrent response rates versus those that do not. This process difference jeopardizes attempts to integrate single- and concurrent-operant performances within a single formulation.     

Multiple determinants of the effects of reinforcement magnitude on free-operant response rates

Four experiments examined the effects of increasing the number of food pellets given to hungry rats for a lever-press response. On a simple variable-interval 60-s schedule, increased number of pellets depressed response rates (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, the decrease in response rate as a function of increased reinforcement magnitude was demonstrated on a variable-interval 30-s schedule, but enhanced rates of response were obtained with the same increase in reinforcement magnitude on a variable-ratio 30 schedule. In Experiment 3, higher rates of responding were maintained by the component of a concurrent variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with a higher reinforcement magnitude. In Experiment 4, higher rates of response were produced in the component of a multiple variable-interval 60-s variable-interval 60-s schedule associated with the higher reinforcement magnitude. It is suggested that on simple schedules greater reinforcer magnitudes shape the reinforced pattern of responding more effectively than do smaller reinforcement magnitudes. This effect is, however, overridden by another process, such a contrast, when two magnitudes are presented within a single session on two-component schedules.