The effect of punishment on free-operant choice behavior in humans

During Phase I, three female human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules specifying different frequencies of reinforcement. On alternate days, responding was also punished (by subtracting money) according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, response rates conformed to Herrnstein's equation for single variable-interval schedules. Punishment suppressed responding at all frequencies of reinforcement. This was reflected in a change in the values of both constants in Herrnstein's equation: the value of the theoretical maximum response-rate parameter was reduced, and the parameter describing the reinforcement frequency corresponding to the half-maximal response rate was elevated. During Phase II, the same five schedules (A) were in operation (without punishment), but in addition, a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) of standard reinforcement frequency was introduced. On alternate days, responding in Component B was punished according to a variable-ratio 34 schedule. In the absence of punishment, absolute response rates conformed to equations proposed by Herrnstein to describe performance in concurrent schedules; the ratios of the response rates in the two components and the ratios of the times spent in the two components conformed to the Matching Law. When responding in Component B was punished, response rates in Component B were reduced and those in Component A were elevated, these changes being reflected in distortions of the matching relationship.     

Performance of humans in variable-interval avoidance schedules programmed singly, and concurrently with variable-interval schedules of positive reinforcement

Performance maintained under single variable-interval avoidance schedules, single variable-interval schedules of positive reinforcement, and concurrent schedules consisting of a variable-interval avoidance component and a variable-interval positive reinforcement component, was studied in three human subjects, using points exchangeable for money as the reinforcer. Response rate in the single variable-interval avoidance schedules was an increasing function of the frequency of monetary loss avoidance. Response rate in the single variable-interval positive reinforcement schedules was an increasing function of the frequency of obtained monetary reinforcement. In the concurrent avoidance/reinforcement schedules, the rate of responding in the avoidance component increased, and the rate of responding in the positive reinforcement schedule decreased (with one exception) as a function of the frequency of loss avoidance in the avoidance component. The logarithms of the ratios of the response rates in the two components, and the logarithms of the ratios of the times spent in the two components, were linearly related to the logarithms of the ratios of the frequency of loss avoidance in the avoidance component to the frequency of reinforcement in the positive reinforcement component. All three subjects exhibited marked undermatching of response rate ratios to reinforcement frequency ratios. The results are discussed in the context of Herrnstein's quantitative model of operant performance.     

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.     

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.     

The linear system theory's account of behavior maintained by variable-ratio schedules.

The mathematical theory of linear systems, which has been used successfully to describe behavior maintained by variable-interval schedules, is extended to describe behavior maintained by variable-ratio schedules. The result of the analysis is a pair of equations, one of which expresses response rate on a variable-ratio schedule as a function of the mean ratio requirement (n) that the schedule arranges. The other equation expresses response rate on a variable-ratio schedule as a function of reinforcement rate. Both equations accurately describe existing data from variable-ratio schedules. The theory accounts for two additional characteristics of behavior maintained by variable-ratio schedules; namely, the appearance of strained, two-valued (i.e., zero or very rapid) responding at large ns, and the abrupt cessation of responding at a boundary n. The theory also accounts for differences between behavior on variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules, including (a) the occurrence of strained responding on variable-ratio but not on variable-interval schedules, (b) the abrupt cessation of responding on occurrence of higher response rates on variable-ratio than on variable-interval schedules. Furthermore, given data from a series of variable-interval schedules and from a series of concurrent variable-ratio variable-interval schedules, the theory permits quantitative prediction of many properties of behavior on single-alternative variable-ratio schedules. The linear system theory's combined account of behavior on variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules is superior to existing versions of six other mathematical theories of variable-interval and variable-ratio responding.     

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.     

Independence of response force and reinforcement rate on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance

Five pigeons were trained over 43 experimental conditions on a variety of concurrent variable-interval schedules on which the forces required on the response keys were varied. The results were well described by the generalized matching law with log reinforcement ratios and log force ratios exerting independent (noninteractive) effects on preference. A further analysis using the Akaike criterion, an information-theoretic measure of the efficiency of a model, showed that overall reinforcement rate and overall force requirement did not affect preference. Unlike reinforcement rate changes, force requirement increases did not change the response rate on the alternate key, and an extension of Herrnstein's absolute response rate function for force variation on a single variable-interval schedule is suggested.     

Hill-climbing by pigeons

Pigeons were exposed to two types of concurrent operant-reinforcement schedules in order to determine what choice rules determine behavior on these schedules. In the first set of experiments, concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to either of two alternative schedules produced food reinforcement after a random time interval. The frequency of food-reinforcement availability for the two schedules was varied over different ranges for different birds. In the second series of experiments, concurrent variable-ratio, variable-interval schedules, key-peck responses to one schedule produced food reinforcement after a random time interval, whereas food reinforcement occurred for an alternative schedule only after a random number of responses. Results from both experiments showed that pigeons consistently follow a behavioral strategy in which the alternative schedule chosen at any time is the one which offers the highest momentary reinforcement probability (momentary maximizing). The quality of momentary maximizing was somewhat higher and more consistent when both alternative reinforcement schedules were time-based than when one schedule was time-based and the alternative response-count based. Previous attempts to provide evidence for the existence of momentary maximizing were shown to be based upon faulty assumptions about the behavior implied by momentary maximizing and resultant inappropriate measures of behavior.     

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.     

Choice: A local analysis

Analyses of free-operant choice usually employ one of two general procedures: the simple concurrent procedure (i.e., a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule) or the concurrent-chains procedure (i.e., concurrently available initial links, each leading to an exclusively available terminal link). Theories about choice usually focus on only one of the two procedures. For example, maximization theories, which assert that behavior is distributed between two alternatives in such a way that overall rate of reinforcement is maximized, have been applied only to the simple concurrent procedure. In the present paper, a form of the pairing hypothesis (according to which pairings between one stimulus and another affect the value of the first, and pairings between responses and reinforcers affect the value of the former) is developed in a way that allows it to make qualitative predictions with regard to choice in a variety of simple concurrent and concurrent-chains procedures. The predictions include matching on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules, preference reversal in the self-control paradigm, and preference for tandem over chained terminal links.     

Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

During Phase I, human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules, each of which specified a different frequency of reinforcement. The rate of responding was an increasing, negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency; the data conformed closely to Herrnstein's equation. During Phase II, the same five schedules were in operation, but in addition a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) was introduced, responses on which were always reinforced at the same frequency. Response rate in component A increased while the response rate in B decreased, as a function of the reinforcement frequency in component A. Relative response rates in the two component schedules matched the relative frequencies of reinforcement. Comparing the absolute response rates in component A during Phase I and Phase II it was found that introduction of the concurrent schedule did not affect the value of the theoretical maximum response rate, but did increase the value of the reinforcement frequency needed to obtain any particular submaximal response rate.     

Behavior-dependent reinforcer-rate changes in concurrent schedules: A further analysis

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules in three different procedures. The first procedure was a standard concurrent schedule, and the relative reinforcer frequency for responding was varied. The second was a schedule in which a relative left-key response rate (over a fixed period of time) exceeding .75 produced, in the next identical time period a higher reinforcer rate on the right key. If this criterion was not exceeded, equal reinforcer rates were arranged on the two keys in this period. This was the dependent procedure. In the third (independent) procedure, the periods of higher right-key reinforcer rates occurred with the same probability as in the second procedure, but occurred independently of behavior. In the second and third procedures, the fixed-time period (window) was varied from 5 s to 60 s, and to 240 s in the second procedure only. Performance on the two keys was similar in the concurrent and independent procedures. The procedure used in the dependent conditions generally affected performance when the windows were shorter than about 30 s. Models of performance that assume that subjects do not discriminate changes in local relative reinforcer rates cannot account for the data. Moreover, existing models are inherently unable to account for the effects of contingencies of reinforcement between responding on one alternative and gaining reinforcers on another that are arranged or that emerge as a result of time allocated to alternative schedules. Undermatching on concurrent variable-interval schedules may result from such emergent contingencies.     

Multiple and concurrent schedule performance: independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts

Six pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules and performance was measured in the presence or absence of another variable-interval schedule (the common schedule) arranged concurrently with both components. Manipulations included varying the rate of reinforcement on the common schedule, leaving the common schedule unchanged while the components of the multiple schedule were varied, varying the multiple schedule components in the absence of the common schedule, and varying one component of the multiple schedule while the other component and the common schedule were unchanged. The normal rate-increasing and rate-decreasing effects of reinforcement rate increase were found, except that changing one multiple schedule component did not affect the response rate in the successively available common schedule component. Both concurrent and multiple schedule performance undermatched obtained reinforcement-rate ratios, but the degree of undermatching in multiple schedules was reliably greater. Allocation of responses between multiple schedule components was unaffected by the concurrent availability of reinforcement, and allocation of responses between concurrent schedules was unaffected by the successive availability of different reinforcement rates.     

An analytic comparison of Herrnstein's equations and a multivariate rate equation

Herrnstein's equations are approximations of the multivariate rate equation at ordinary rates of reinforcement and responding. The rate equation is the result of a linear system analysis of variable-interval performance. Rate equation matching is more comprehensive than ordinary matching because it predicts and specifies the nature of concurrent bias, and predicts a tendency toward undermatching, which is sometimes observed in concurrent situations. The rate equation contradicts one feature of Herrnstein's hyperbola, viz., the theoretically required constancy of k. According to the rate equation, Herrnstein's k should vary directly with parameters of reinforcement such as amount or immediacy. Because of this prediction, the rate equation asserts that the conceptual framework of matching does not apply to single alternative responding. The issue of the constancy of k provides empirical grounds for distinguishing between Herrnstein's account and a linear system analysis of single alternative variable-interval responding.     

Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior

The interaction between instrumental behavior and environment can be conveniently described at a molar level as a feedback system. Two different possible theories, the matching law and optimization, differ primarily in the reference criterion they suggest for the system. Both offer accounts of most of the known phenomena of performance on concurrent and single variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules. The matching law appears stronger in describing concurrent performances, whereas optimization appears stronger in describing performance on single schedules.     

Effects of adding a second reinforcement alternative: implications for Herrnstein's interpretation of r(e)

Herrnstein's hyperbola describes the relation between response rate and reinforcer rate on variable-interval (VI) schedules. According to Herrnstein's (1970) interpretation, the parameter r(e) represents the reinforcer rate extraneous to the alternative to which the equation is fitted (the target alternative). The hyperbola is based on an assumption that extraneous reinforcer rate remains constant with changes in reinforcer rate on the target alternative (the constant-r(e) assumption) and that matching with no bias and perfect sensitivity occurs between response and reinforcer ratios. In the present experiment, 12 rats pressed levers for food on a series of 10 VI schedules arranged on the target alternative. Across conditions, six VI values and extinction were arranged on a second alternative. Reinforcer rate on the second alternative, r2, negatively covaried with reinforcer rate on the target alternative for five of the six VI values on the second alternative, and significant degrees of bias and undermatching occurred in response ratios. Given covariation of reinforcer rate on the second and target alternatives, the constant-r(e) assumption can be maintained only by assuming that reinforcer rate from unmeasured background sources, rb, covaries with reinforcer rate on the second alternative such that their sum, r(e), remains constant. In a single-schedule arrangement, however, r(e) equals rb and thus rb is assumed to remain constant, forcing a conceptual inconsistency between single- and concurrent-schedule arrangements. Furthermore, although an alternative formulation of the hyperbola can account for variations in bias and sensitivity, the modified equation also is based on the constant-r(e) assumption and therefore suffers from the same logical problem as the hyperbola when reinforcer rate on the second alternative covaries with reinforcer rate on the target alternative.