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.     

Choice in situations of time-based diminishing returns: immediate versus delayed consequences of action.

Pigeons chose between two schedules of food presentation, a fixed-interval schedule and a progressive-interval schedule that began at 0 s and increased by 20 s with each food delivery provided by that schedule. Choosing one schedule disabled the alternate schedule and stimuli until the requirements of the chosen schedule were satisfied, at which point both schedules were again made available. Fixed-interval duration remained constant within individual sessions but varied across conditions. Under reset conditions, completing the fixed-interval schedule not only produced food but also reset the progressive interval to its minimum. Blocks of sessions under the reset procedure were interspersed with sessions under a no-reset procedure, in which the progressive schedule value increased independent of fixed-interval choices. Median points of switching from the progressive to the fixed schedule varied systematically with fixed-interval value, and were consistently lower during reset than during no-reset conditions. Under the latter, each subject's choices of the progressive-interval schedule persisted beyond the point at which its requirements equaled those of the fixed-interval schedule at all but the highest fixed-interval value. Under the reset procedure, switching occurred at or prior to that equality point. These results qualitatively confirm molar analyses of schedule preference and some versions of optimality theory, but they are more adequately characterized by a model of schedule preference based on the cumulated values of multiple reinforcers, weighted in inverse proportion to the delay between the choice and each successive reinforcer.     

A comparison of response patterns on fixed-, variable-, and random-ratio schedules

The behavior of individual pigeons on fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, and random-ratio schedules was examined. Within each type of ratio schedule the size of the ratio was varied in an irregular sequence. At various ratio sizes (5, 10, 40, 80) no differences were found among overall response rates (postreinforcement pause plus running response rate) as a function of ratio type. This similarity in overall response rates held despite noticeable differences in the microstructure of performance both within and across subjects; the primary performance difference on the three types of ratio schedules was the relatively longer postreinforcement pause duration on the fixed-ratio schedule. We concluded that the gross temporal characteristics of performance determined by the relative weightings of the postreinforcement pause and running response rate were primarily controlled by the type of ratio schedule (fixed, variable, or random), whereas the overall rate of responding was controlled by the size of the ratio.     

Second-order schedules of token reinforcement with pigeons: effects of fixed- and variable-ratio exchange schedules

Pigeons' key pecks produced food under second-order schedules of token reinforcement, with light-emitting diodes serving as token reinforcers. In Experiment 1, tokens were earned according to a fixed-ratio 50 schedule and were exchanged for food according to either fixed-ratio or variable-ratio exchange schedules, with schedule type varied across conditions. In Experiment 2, schedule type was varied within sessions using a multiple schedule. In one component, tokens were earned according to a fixed-ratio 50 schedule and exchanged according to a variable-ratio schedule. In the other component, tokens were earned according to a variable-ratio 50 schedule and exchanged according to a fixed-ratio schedule. In both experiments, the number of responses per exchange was varied parametrically across conditions, ranging from 50 to 400 responses. Response rates decreased systematically with increases in the fixed-ratio exchange schedules, but were much less affected by changes in the variable-ratio exchange schedules. Response rates were consistently higher under variable-ratio exchange schedules than tinder comparable fixed-ratio exchange schedules, especially at higher exchange ratios. These response-rate differences were due both to greater pre-ratio pausing and to lower local rates tinder the fixed-ratio exchange schedules. Local response rates increased with proximity to food under the higher fixed-ratio exchange schedules, indicative of discriminative control by the tokens.     

An evaluation of the value of choice-making opportunities in single-operant arrangements: simple fixed- and progressive-ratio schedules

The current study compared the effects of choice and no-choice reinforcement conditions on the task responding of 3 children with autism across 2 single-operant paradigm reinforcer assessments. The first assessment employed simple fixed-ratio (FR) schedules; the second used progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. The latter assessment identified the differential strength of choice-making conditions in promoting task responding relative to no-choice conditions for 2 participants; no differential findings were obtained during the FR assessment.     

Human choice in "counterintuitive" situations: fixed- versus progressive-ratio schedules.

College undergraduates were given repeated opportunities to choose between a fixed-ratio and a progressive-ratio schedule of reinforcement. Completions of a progressive-ratio schedule produced points (exchangeable for money) and incremented that response requirement by 20 responses with each consecutive choice. In the reset condition, completion of a fixed ratio produced the same number of points and also reset the progressive ratio back to its initial value. In the no-reset condition, the progressive ratio continued to increase by increments of 20 throughout the session with each successive selection of this schedule, irrespective of fixed-ratio choices. Subjects' schedule choices were sensitive to parametric manipulations of the size of the fixed-ratio schedule and were consistent with predictions made on the basis of minimizing the number of responses emitted per point earned, which is a principle of most optimality theories. Also, the present results suggest that if data from human performances are to be compared with results for other species, humans should be exposed to schedules of reinforcement for long periods of time, as is commonly done with nonhuman subjects.     

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.     

Instructional versus schedule control of humans' choices in situations of diminishing returns

Four adult humans chose repeatedly between a fixed-time schedule (of points later exchangeable for money) and a progressive-time schedule that began at 0 s and increased by a fixed number of seconds with each point delivered by that schedule. Each point delivered by the fixed-time schedule reset the requirements of the progressive-time schedule to its minimum value. Subjects were provided with instructions that specified a particular sequence of choices. Under the initial conditions, the instructions accurately specified the optimal choice sequence. Thus, control by instructions and optimal control by the programmed contingencies both supported the same performance. To distinguish the effects of instructions from schedule sensitivity, the correspondence between the instructed and optimal choice patterns was gradually altered across conditions by varying the step size of the progressive-time schedule while maintaining the same instructions. Step size was manipulated, typically in 1-s units, first in an ascending and then in a descending sequence of conditions. Instructions quickly established control in all 4 subjects but, by narrowing the range of choice patterns, they reduced subsequent sensitivity to schedule changes. Instructional control was maintained across the ascending sequence of progressive-time values for each subject, but eventually diminished, giving way to more schedule-appropriate patterns. The transition from instruction-appropriate to schedule-appropriate behavior was characterized by an increase in the variability of choice patterns and local increases in point density. On the descending sequence of progressive-time values, behavior appeared to be schedule sensitive, sometimes even optimally sensitive, but it did not always change systematically with the contingencies, suggesting the involvement of other factors.     

Pigeons' preference for free choice: number of keys versus key area.

In concurrent-chains schedules, pigeons prefer terminal links that provide two keys correlated with reinforcers (free choice) over those that provide only one key (forced choice), terminal-link reinforcement rates being equal. With same-size keys, free choice provides a larger area available for pecking. Preferences were examined using terminal links that differed in key number only (one or two) or key size only (small and medium or medium and large), or that equated the area of the two free-choice keys with that of the forced-choice key. Medium (standard) keys were typically preferred to small keys, but indifference was typically obtained between medium and large keys. The size preference usually overrode free-choice preference with one medium key pitted against two small keys, but free-choice preference was reliably observed with one large key pitted against two medium keys. In other words, preferences were a joint function of key number and key area, implying that free-choice preference is not reducible to preference for larger key areas. Free-choice preference requires separate keys rather than larger areas; the relevant behavioral units are the discriminated operants correlated with each terminal-link key rather than classes defined by topographical features such as area or perimeter.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Determinants of pigeons' choices in token-based self-control procedures

Four pigeons were exposed to a token-based self-control procedure with stimulus lights serving as token reinforcers. Smaller-reinforcer choices produced one token immediately; larger-reinforcer choices produced three tokens following a delay. Each token could be exchanged for 2-s access to food during a signaled exchange period each trial. The main variables of interest were the exchange delays (delays from the choice to the exchange stimulus) and the food delays (also timed from the choice), which were varied separately and together across blocks of sessions. When exchange delays and food delays were shorter following smaller-reinforcer choices, strong preference for the smaller reinforcer was observed. When exchange delays and food delays were equal for both options, strong preference for the larger reinforcer was observed. When food delays were equal for both options but exchange delays were shorter for smaller-reinforcer choices, preference for the larger reinforcer generally was less extreme than under conditions in which both exchange and food delays were equal. When exchange delays were equal for both options but food delays were shorter for smaller-reinforcer choices, preference for the smaller reinforcer generally was less extreme than under conditions in which both exchange and food delays favored smaller-reinforcer choices. On the whole, the results were consistent with prior research on token-based self-control procedures in showing that choices are governed by reinforcer immediacy when exchange and food delays are unequal and by reinforcer amount when exchange and food delays are equal. Further, by decoupling the exchange delays from food delays, the results tentatively support a role for the exchange stimulus as a conditioned reinforcer.     

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.     

Conjoint schedules of timeout deletion in pigeons.

This experiment attempted to bring behavior under joint control of two distinct contingencies, one that provided food and a second that extended the periods during which that food was available. Pigeons' responses on each of two keys were reinforced according to a single random-interval schedule of food presentation except during signaled timeout periods during which the schedule was temporarily disabled. By means of a conjoint schedule, responses on the initially less preferred key not only produced food but also canceled impending timeouts. When behavior came to predominate on this conjoint alternative, the consequences of responding on the two keys were reversed. Responding in 3 of 4 pigeons proved sensitive to the conjoint scheduled consequences, as evidenced by systematic shifts in response rates favoring the conjoint key. In 2 of these 3 pigeons, sensitivity to the conjoint contingency was evident under time-in:timeout ratios of 2:1 (time-in = 120 s, timeout = 60 s) and 1:5 (time-in = 30 s, timeout = 150 s), whereas for the other pigeon preference for the conjoint key was observed only under the latter sequence of conditions. There was only weak evidence of control by the conjoint scheduled consequences in the 4th subject, despite extended training and forced exposure to the conjoint alternative. The overall pattern of results is consistent with studies of timeout avoidance but also shares features in common with positively reinforced behavior.     

Second-order schedules of token reinforcement with pigeons: implications for unit price

Four pigeons were exposed to second-order schedules of token reinforcement, with stimulus lights serving as token reinforcers. Tokens were earned according to a fixed-ratio (token-production) schedule, with the opportunity to exchange tokens for food (exchange period) occurring after a fixed number had been produced (exchange-production ratio). The token-production and exchange-production ratios were manipulated systematically across conditions. Response rates varied inversely with the token-production ratio at each exchange-production ratio. Response rates also varied inversely with the exchange-production ratio at each token-production ratio, particularly at the higher token-production ratios. At higher token-production and exchange-production ratios, response rates increased in token-production segments closer to exchange periods and food. Some conditions were conducted in a closed economy, in which the pigeons earned all their daily ration of food within the session. Relative to comparable open-economy conditions, response rates in the closed economy were less affected by changes in token-production ratio, resulting in higher levels of food intake and body weight. Some of the results are consistent with the economic concept of unit price, a cost-benefit ratio comprised of responses per unit of food delivery, but most are well accounted for by a consideration of the number of responses required to produce exchange periods, without regard to the amount of reinforcement available during those exchange periods.