Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans

Two experiments with human subjects investigated the effects of rate of reinforcement and reinforcer magnitude upon choice. In Experiment 1, each of five subjects responded on four concurrent variable-interval schedules. In contrast to previous studies using non-human organisms, relative response rate did not closely match relative rate of reinforcement. Discrepancies ranged from 0.03 to 0.43 (mean equal to 0.19). Similar discrepancies were found between relative amount of time spent responding on each schedule and the corresponding relative rates of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, in which reinforcer magnitude was varied for each of five subjects, similar discrepancies ranging from 0.05 to 0.50 (mean equal to 0.21), were found between relative response rate and relative proportion of reinforcers received. In both experiments, changeover rates were lower on the long-interval concurrent schedules than on the short-interval ones. The results suggest that simple application of previous generalizations regarding the effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice for variable-interval schedules does not accurately describe human behavior in a simple laboratory situation.     

A quantitative analysis of chain-schedule performance

Six pigeons were trained with a chain variable-interval variable-interval schedule on the left key and with reinforcers available on the right key on a single variable-interval schedule arranged concurrently with both links of the chain. All three schedules were separately and systematically varied over a wide range of mean intervals. During these manipulations, the obtained reinforcer rates on constant arranged schedules also frequently changed systematically. Increasing reinforcer rates in Link 2 of the chain increased response rates in both links and decreased response rates in the variable-interval schedule concurrently available with Link 2. Increasing Link-1 reinforcer rates increased Link-1 response rates and decreased Link-2 response rates. Increasing reinforcer rates on the right-key schedule decreased response rates in Link 1 of the chain but did not affect the rate in Link 2. The results extend and amplify previous analyses of chain-schedule performance and help define the effects that a quantitative model must describe. However, the complexity of the results, and the fact that constant arranged reinforcer schedules did not necessarily lead to constant obtained reinforcer rates, precluded a quantitative analysis.     

Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers

Six pigeons responded on a series of concurrent exponential variable-interval schedules, offering a within-subject comparison with previously published data from concurrent arithmetic variable-interval schedules. Both relative and overall reinforcer rates were varied between conditions. The generalized matching law described the data well, with undermatching much more frequent than strict matching. Time-allocation sensitivity consistently exceeded response-allocation sensitivity for both schedule types, and exponential-schedule sensitivity exceeded arithmetic-schedule sensitivity for both measures of choice. A further set of conditions using variable-interval schedules whose shortest interval was correlated with the mean interval, like arithmetic schedules, but that provided a constant conditional probability of reinforcement, like exponential schedules, produced sensitivities between those produced by conventional arithmetic and exponential schedules. Unlike previous arithmetic-schedule results, exponential sensitivity changed nonmonotonically with changes in overall reinforcer rate. The results clarify our knowledge of the effects of arithmetic and exponential schedules but confuse our understanding of the effects of overall reinforcer rate on concurrent choice.     

Variable-ratio versus variable-interval schedules: response rate, resistance to change, and preference

Two experiments asked whether resistance to change depended on variable-ratio as opposed to variable-interval contingencies of reinforcement and the different response rates they establish. In Experiment 1, pigeons were trained on multiple random-ratio random-interval schedules with equated reinforcer rates. Baseline response rates were disrupted by intercomponent food, extinction, and prefeeding. Resistance to change relative to baseline was greater in the interval component, and the difference was correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher in the ratio component. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained on multiple variable-ratio variable-interval schedules in one half of each session and on concurrent chains in the other half in which the terminal links corresponded to the multiple-schedule components. The schedules were varied over six conditions, including two with equated reinforcer rates. In concurrent chains, preference strongly overmatched the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates. In multiple schedules, relative resistance to response-independent food during intercomponent intervals, extinction, and intercomponent food plus extinction depended on the ratio of obtained reinforcer rates but was less sensitive than was preference. When reinforcer rates were similar, both preference and relative resistance were greater for the variable-interval schedule, and the differences were correlated with the extent to which baseline response rates were higher on the variable-ratio schedule, confirming the results of Experiment 1. These results demonstrate that resistance to change and preference depend in part on response rate as well as obtained reinforcer rate, and challenge the independence of resistance to change and preference with respect to response rate proposed by behavioral momentum theory.     

DOES SENSITIVITY TO MAGNITUDE DEPEND ON THE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF REINFORCEMENT?

Our research addressed the question of whether sensitivity to relative reinforcer magnitude in concurrent chains depends on the distribution of reinforcer delays when the terminal-link schedules are equal. In Experiment 1, 12 pigeons responded in a two-component procedure. In both components, the initial links were concurrent variable-interval 40-s variable-interval 40-s, and the terminal links were both 20-s interval schedules in which responses were reinforced by either 4-s of grain in one, or 2-s of grain in the other. The only difference between the components was whether the terminal-link schedules were fixed interval or variable intervals. For all subjects, the relative rate of responding in the initial links for the terminal link that produced the 4-s reinforcer was greater when the terminal links were fixed-interval schedules than when they were variable-interval schedules. This result is contrary to the prediction of Grace's (1994) contextual choice model, but is consistent with both Mazur's (2001) hyperbolic value-added model and Killeen's (1985) incentive theory. In Experiment 2, 4 pigeons responded in a concurrent-chains procedure in which 4-s or 2-s reinforcers were provided independently of responding according to equal fixed-time or mixed-time schedules. Preference for the 4-s reinforcer increased as the variability of the intervals comprising the mixed-time schedules was decreased. Generalized-matching sensitivity of initial-link response allocation to relative reinforcer magnitude was proportional to the geometric mean of the terminal-link delays.     

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.     

Secondary reinforcement and number of primary reinforcements

Pigeons' pecks on either of two concurrently available response keys produced secondary reinforcers according to independent one-minute variable-interval schedules. Different secondary reinforcers, in the presence of which the rates of primary reinforcement were equal, were associated with each key. The rate of pecking maintained by each secondary reinforcer varied directly, but nonproportionally, with the number of primary reinforcements given in the presence of the secondary reinforcer.     

Resistance to extinction in the steady state and in transition

Three experiments with pigeons explored the constancy of reinforcer omission during extinction conjectured by rate estimation theory. Experiment 1 arranged 3-component multiple variable-interval (VI) schedules with a mixture of food and extinction trials within each session. Reinforcers omitted to an extinction criterion increased with food-trial reinforcer rate. Experiment 2 arranged 3-component multiple VI schedules where components differed in rate or number of reinforcers. Resistance to extinction depended on the training reinforcer rate but not on the number of reinforcers omitted. Experiment 3 replicated the partial-reinforcement extinction effect within subjects in a discrete-trial procedure and found that more reinforcers were omitted in continuous- than in partial-reinforcement trials. A model of extinction based on behavioral momentum theory accounted for all the data.     

Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules with unequal reinforcer durations for the two responses. The schedules arranged on the two keys were kept equal while they were varied in absolute size. As the overall reinforcer rate was increased, both response-allocation and time-allocation measures of choice showed a trend toward indifference, and measures of sensitivity to reinforcer-duration ratios significantly decreased. Recent reports have shown that the generalized matching law cannot describe the changes in behavior allocation under constant delay-, duration-, or rate-ratios when changes are made in the absolute levels of each of these variables. The present results complement these findings by demonstrating that the concatenated generalized matching law cannot describe the interactions of two reinforcer variables on behavior allocation.     

Effects of reinforcer duration on responding in two-link chained interval schedules

Each of five pigeons was exposed to two or more durations of access to mixed grains on two-link, chained, interval schedules in which both links were identical fixed-interval or variable-interval schedules. Response rates were an increasing function of reinforcer duration for both initial and terminal links. For both types of interval schedules, initial-link response rates were more sensitive to reinforcer duration than were terminal-link response rates. The present results, together with prior ones, suggest that chaining and choice procedures are each sufficient for demonstrating substantial sensitivity of responding to changes in reinforcer duration.     

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.     

Dynamical concurrent schedules

Previous work on the matching law has predominantly focused on the molar effects of the contingency by examining only one reinforcer ratio for extended periods. Responses are distributed as a function of reinforcer ratios under these static conditions. But the outcome under a dynamic condition in which reinforcer ratios change continuously has not been determined. The present study implemented concurrent variable-interval schedules that changed continuously across a fixed 5-min trial. The schedules were reciprocally interlocked. The variable interval for one key changed continuously from a variable-interval 15-s to a variable-interval 480-s, while the schedule for the other key changed from a variable-interval 480-s to a variable-interval 15-s. This dynamical concurrent schedule shifted behavior in the direction of matching response ratios to reinforcer ratios. Sensitivities derived from the generalized matching law were approximately 0.62, the mean absolute bias was approximately 0.11, and r2s were approximately 0.86. It was concluded that choice behavior can come to adapt to reinforcer ratios that change continuously over a relatively short time and that this change does not require extensive experience with a fixed reinforcer ratio. The results were seen as supportive of the view that all behavior constitutes choice.     

Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer

In Experiment 1, matching of relative response rates to relative rates of reinforcement was obtained in concurrent variable-interval schedules when the absolute values of the two concurrent variable-interval schedules varied from 6 sec and 12 sec to 600 sec and 1200 sec. Increases in the duration of the changeover delay, however, produced decreases in the relative response rates and, consequently, some deviation from matching. In Experiment 2, matching of relative response rates to the relative duration of the reinforcer failed to occur when the equal variable-interval schedules arranging access to the two different reinforcer durations (1.5 and 6 sec) were varied in size from concurrent variable-interval 10-sec schedules to concurrent variable-interval 600-sec schedules.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of intertrial reinforcers on self-control choice.

In three experiments, pigeons chose between a small amount of food delivered after a short delay and a larger amount delivered after a longer delay. A discrete-trial adjusting-delay procedure was used to estimate indifference points--pairs of delay-amount combinations that were chosen about equally often. In Experiment 1, when additional reinforcers were available during intertrial intervals on a variable-interval schedule, preference for the smaller, more immediate reinforcer increased. Experiment 2 found that this shift in preference occurred partly because the variable-interval schedule started sooner after the smaller, more immediate reinforcer, but there was still a small shift in preference when the durations and temporal locations of the variable-interval schedules were identical for both alternatives. Experiment 3 found greater increases in preference for the smaller, more immediate reinforcer with a variable-interval 15-s schedule than with a variable-interval 90-s schedule. The results were generally consistent with a model that states that the impact of any event that follows a choice response declines according to a hyperbolic function with increasing time since the moment of choice.     

Earning and obtaining reinforcers under concurrent interval scheduling

Contingencies of reinforcement specify how reinforcers are earned and how they are obtained. Ratio contingencies specify the number of responses that earn a reinforcer, and the response satisfying the ratio requirement obtains the earned reinforcer. Simple interval schedules specify that a certain time earns a reinforcer, which is obtained by the first response after the interval. The earning of reinforcers has been overlooked, perhaps because simple schedules confound the rates of earning reinforcers with the rates of obtaining reinforcers. In concurrent variable-interval schedules, however, spending time at one alternative earns reinforcers not only at that alternative, but at the other alternative as well. Reinforcers earned for delivery at the other alternative are obtained after changing over. Thus the rates of earning reinforcers are not confounded with the rate of obtaining reinforcers, but the rates of earning reinforcers are the same at both alternatives, which masks their possibly differing effects on preference. Two experiments examined the separate effects of earning reinforcers and of obtaining reinforcers on preference by using concurrent interval schedules composed of two pairs of stay and switch schedules (MacDonall, 2000). In both experiments, the generalized matching law, which is based on rates of obtaining reinforcers, described responding only when rates of earning reinforcers were the same at each alternative. An equation that included both the ratio of the rates of obtaining reinforcers and the ratio of the rates of earning reinforcers described the results from all conditions from each experiment.     

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.     

Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate

Six pigeons were trained to respond on two keys, each of which provided reinforcers on an arithmetic variable-interval schedule. These concurrent schedules ran nonindependently with a 2-s changeover delay. Six sets of conditions were conducted. Within each set of conditions the ratio of reinforcers available on the two alternatives was varied, but the arranged overall reinforcer rate remained constant. Each set of conditions used a different overall reinforcer rate, ranging from 0.22 reinforcers per minute to 10 reinforcers per minute. The generalized matching law fit the data from each set of conditions, but sensitivity to reinforcer frequency (a) decreased as the overall reinforcer rate decreased for both time allocation and response allocation based analyses of the data. Overall response rates did not vary with changes in relative reinforcer rate, but decreased with decreases in overall reinforcer rate. Changeover rates varied as a function of both relative and overall reinforcer rates. However, as explanations based on changeover rate seem unable to deal with the changes in generalized matching sensitivity, discrimination accounts of choice may offer a more promising interpretation.