Choice and segmented interreinforcement intervals

Pigeons were trained on a two-key concurrent schedule, where food reinforcers on one key were arranged by a simple variable-interval schedule and on the other key by a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule. When the initial link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons tended to respond more on the simple variable-interval schedule, and hence less on the chain, than would be expected from a comparison of both the local and overall rates of reinforcement of the two schedules. When the terminal link of the chain was in effect, the pigeons responded more on the chain than would be expected from a comparison of the rates of reinforcement of the schedules then in effect. Overall responding on the chain was not proportional to overall reinforcement on the chain but rather was a by-product of responding during initial- and terminal-link phases.     

Concurrent random-interval schedules and the matching law

In Experiment I, a group of eight pigeons performed on concurrent random-interval schedules constructed by holding probability equal and varying cycle time to produce ratios of reinforcer densities of 1:1, 3:1, and 5:1 for key pecking. Schedules for a second group of seven were constructed with equal cycle times and unequal probabilities. Both groups deviated from simple matching, but the two forms of the schedules appeared to produce no consistent patterns of deviation. The data were found to be consistent with those obtained in concurrent variable-interval situations. The parameters of the matching equation in the form of Y=k X^a were estimated; the value of k was unity and a was 0.84. In Experiment II, six pigeons were exposed to two conc RI RI schedules in which one component increasingly approximated an FI schedule. The value of k was not 1.0. Concurrent RI RI schedules were shown to represent a continuum from conc FI VI to conc VI VI schedules. The use of the exponential equation in testing “matching laws” suggests that a<1 will continue to be observed, and this will set limits on the form of new laws and the assumed or rational values of the component variables in these laws.     

The applied importance of research on the matching law

In this essay, we evaluate the applied implications of two articles related to the matching law and published in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, May 1994. Building on Mace's (1994) criteria for increasing the applied relevance of basic research, we evaluate the applied implications of basic research studies. Research by Elsmore and McBride (1994) and Savastano and Fantino (1994) involve an extension of the behavioral model of choice. Elsmore and McBride used rats as subjects, but arranged a multioperant environment that resembles some of the complex contingencies of human behavior. Savastino and Fantino used human subjects and extended the matching law to ratio and interval contingencies. These experiments contribute to a growing body of knowledge on the matching law and its relevance for human behavior.     

Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules

Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons “prefer” the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they “prefer” the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.     

Optimization versus response-strength accounts of behavior

Pigeons were run in both single-key and concurrent-key experiments in which, over most of the range of response rates, an increase in response rate gave rise to a continuous decrease in reinforcement rate. In spite of the fact that a low response rate would have produced a high reinforcement rate, all birds responded at relatively high rates, thus keeping reinforcement rates substantially below the maximum possible. In the concurrent-key experiment, in addition to responding at relatively high rates, the birds' ratios of responses approximately matched the corresponding ratios of obtained reinforcers. The results are inconsistent with most theories of optimal performance, which assume that organisms behave in ways that either maximize reinforcement value or minimize deviations from a free-behavior point. On the other hand, the results are consistent with the assumption that reinforcement strengthens the tendency to respond.     

The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behavior

In a concurrent-chains procedure, pigeons chose between outcomes that differed in the rate of response-independent delivery of food and electric shocks. The application of functional measurement techniques confirmed the matching relation—between choice and rate of reinforcement value—for two of three pigeons. Scale values of the outcomes were extracted for the two birds that conformed to matching, and the value of a single occurrence of shock per minute—in terms of negative food units—was estimated. A second experiment with concurrent chains provided a test of these parameter estimates. The close correspondence between predicted and obtained choice behavior found in Experiment II indicated that the estimates of outcome value were indeed reliable. Both experiments together support the contention that the effects on choice behavior of positive and aversive stimuli appear to be equal, though opposite in sign.     

Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

The extant data for pigeons' performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules were examined in detail. Least-squares lines relating relative pecks and time to the corresponding relative reinforcements were obtained for four studies. The between-study group slopes for time and pecks and five of seven within-study group slopes from individual studies were less than 1.00. This suggested the generality that pigeons respond less to the richer reinforcement schedule than predicted by matching. For pecks, a nonparametric test for distribution of points also supported this concept of undermatching (to the richer reinforcement schedule). In addition, using mean squared error as the criterion, a cubic curve fit the peck proportion data better than any line or other polynomial. This indicates that the relation between peck and reinforcement proportions may be nonlinear.     

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.     

Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law

Five pigeons were exposed to different pairs of concurrent variable-interval, variable-interval schedules on nine experimental conditions of 30 sessions each. For every session, the parameters of the generalized matching equation were computed for the first five, six, seven, eight, and nine experimental conditions. The exponent a, both for response and time distribution, tended to decrease with increases in number of experimental conditions and to increase with number of sessions per condition, but values of k (bias) varied unsystematically. When the subjects were exposed to five new pairs of schedules, with 55 sessions per condition, the findings were confirmed. Data from the literature on the generalized matching law suggest that the variability of exponent values may be explained in part by the use of naive or experienced subjects in different investigations and by the variability in number of experimental conditions and in number of sessions per condition.     

Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement

A trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement was arranged according to a changeover-key procedure, including a changeover delay of 1.5 sec. The three schedules provided a combined maximum reinforcement rate of 45 reinforcements per hour. With that restriction, the nine experimental conditions included several combinations of variable-interval schedules, sometimes including extinction. The pigeons matched relative response rate and relative time to relative reinforcement rate. Relative time appeared to match some-what better than relative response rate. Performance adjusted rapidly from one experimental condition to the next, whether the change involved two or all three schedules of the concurrent trio.     

IS THERE A DECISIVE TEST BETWEEN MATCHING AND MAXIMIZING?

Reinforcers under typical concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be (a) earned and obtained during the variable-interval component, (b) earned and obtained during the variable-ratio component, or (c) earned during the variable-ratio component and obtained during the variable-interval component. Categories a and b, which have no bearing on matching versus maximizing accounts of choice, were set at zero. The rate of Category c reinforcers and the duration of a changeover delay were varied. Simple matching, which predicts exclusive choice of the variable-interval component, and strict maximizing of overall reinforcement rate, which predicts a bias towards the variable-ratio component, were both disconfirmed: Subjects spent approximately 25% of their time in the variable-ratio component, contrary to the matching prediction, but earned only about one third of the reinforcers predicted by strict maximizing. However, maximizing describes the findings functionally in terms of discounting of delayed reinforcers; matching may describe the data in terms of a restructuring of the alternatives. Matching and maximizing are not competing theories about the fundamental nature of choice, but compatible points of view that may reveal environmental function and behavioral structure.