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.     

Successive independence of multiple-schedule component performances

In three experiments, pigeons' responses were reinforced on two keys in each component of a series of multiple-schedule conditions. In each series, concurrent variable-interval schedules were constant in one component and were varied over conditions in the other component. In the first experiment both components arranged the same, constant total number of reinforcers, in the second the two components arranged constant but different totals, and in the third experiment the total was varied in one component and remained constant in the other. Relative reinforcer rate during the varied component was manipulated over conditions in all three experiments. In all these experiments, response and time allocation in the constant component were invariant when reinforcer ratios varied in the other component, demonstrating independence of behavior allocation in a multiple-schedule component from the relative reinforcer rate for the same alternatives in another component. In the two experiments which maintained constant reinforcer totals in components, sensitivity to reinforcement in the multiple schedules was the same as that in the concurrent schedules arranged during the varied component, with multiple-schedule bias in the experiment in which the totals were unequal.     

The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers as a function of component duration and baseline rate of reinforcement

Four pigeons responded on multiple schedules arranged on a “main” key in a two-key experimental chamber. A constant schedule component was alternated with another component that was varied over conditions. On an extra response key, conjoint schedules of reinforcement that operated in both components were arranged concurrently with the multiple schedule on the main key. On the main key, changes in reinforcement rate in the varied component were inversely related to changes in response rates in the constant component (behavioral contrast). On the extra key, some reinforcers were reallocated between components, depending on the schedules in effect on the main key in the varied component. In the varied component, the obtained rates of reinforcement on the extra key were inversely related to main-key reinforcement rate. In the constant component, extra-key reinforcer rates were positively related to main-key reinforcer rates obtained in the varied component, and were not a function of response rates on the extra key. In two comparisons, the rate at which components alternated and the value of the main-key schedule in the constant component were varied. Consistent with earlier work, long components reduced the extent of contrast. Reductions in contrast as a function of component duration were accompanied by similar reductions in the extent of reinforcer reallocation on the extra key. In the second comparison, lowering the rate of reinforcement in the constant component increased the rate at which extra-key reinforcers were obtained, reduced the extent of reinforcer reallocation, and reduced contrast. Overall, the results are consistent with the suggestion that some contrast effects are due to the changes in extraneous reinforcement during the constant component, and that manipulations of component duration, and manipulations of the rate of reinforcement in the constant component, affect contrast because they influence the extent of extraneous reinforcer real-location.     

Contrast and induction in multiple schedules of discrete-trial concurrent reinforcement

Three pigeons were exposed to two-key discrete-trial concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Red and white key colors alternated irregularly and the assignment of reinforcers depended on key color. The red-key schedules were held constant, with the scheduled relative frequency of reinforcement for left-key pecks set at 0.75, while the white-key schedules varied. When the location of white-key reinforcement was changed from one side to the other, while its overall frequency was constant, red-key choices shifted in the same direction as white-key choices, an induction effect. When the overall frequency of white-key reinforcement was changed while its location remained constant, red key choices shifted in a direction opposite to white-key choices, a contrast effect. Both induction and contrast effects were clearer when the overall frequency of red-key reinforcement was reduced. These data demonstrate that the allocation of responding may exhibit schedule interaction effects similar to those commonly reported for response rate.     

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.     

Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration

Twelve pigeons responded on two keys under concurrent variable-interval (VI) schedules. Over several series of conditions, relative and absolute magnitudes of reinforcement were varied. Within each series, relative rate of reinforcement was varied and sensitivity of behavior ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios was assessed. When responding at both alternatives was maintained by equal-sized small reinforcers, sensitivity to variation in reinforcer-rate ratios was the same as when large reinforcers were used. This result was observed when the overall rate of reinforcement was constant over conditions, and also in another series of concurrent schedules in which one schedule was kept constant at VI ached 120 s. Similarly, reinforcer magnitude did not affect the rate at which response allocation approached asymptote within a condition. When reinforcer magnitudes differred between the two responses and reinforcer-rate ratios were varied, sensitivity of behavior allocation was unaffected although response bias favored the schedule that arranged the larger reinforcers. Analysis of absolute response rates ratio sensitivity to reinforcement occurrred on the two keys showed that this invariance of response despite changes in reinforcement interaction that were observed in absolute response rates on the constant VI 120-s schedule. Response rate on the constant VI 120-s schedule was inversely related to reinforcer rate on the varied key and the strength of this relation depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcers arranged on varied key. Independence of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratios from relative and absolute reinforcer magnitude is consistent with the relativity and independence assumtions of the matching law.     

Contrast and reallocation of extraneous reinforcers between multiple-schedule components

Four pigeons responded in components of multiple schedules in which two responses were available and reinforced with food. Pecks on the left key (“main” key) were reinforced at a constant rate in one component and at a rate that varied over conditions in the other component. When reinforcer rate was varied, behavioral contrast occurred in the constant component. On the right key (“extra” key), five variable-interval schedules and one variable-ratio schedule, presented conjointly, arranged reinforcers for responses in all conditions. These conjoint schedules were common to both multiple-schedule components—rather than unique to particular components—and reinforcers from these schedules could therefore be arranged in one component and obtained during the other component. In this way, the additional reinforcers were analogous to the “extraneous” reinforcers thought to maintain behavior other than pecking in conventional multiple schedules. Response rate on the extra key did not change systematically over conditions in the constant component, and in the varied component extra responding was inversely related to main-key reinforcement. All subjects obtained more extra-key reinforcers in whichever component arranged fewer main-key reinforcers. Consistent with the theory that reallocation of extraneous reinforcers may cause behavioral contrast, absolute reinforcer rate for the extra key in the constant component was low in conditions that produced positive contrast on the main key and high in those that produced negative contrast. Also consistent with this theory, behavioral contrast was reduced in two conditions that canceled extra-key reinforcers that had been arranged but not obtained at the end of components. Thus, a constraint on reallocation markedly reduced the extent of contrast.     

On the effects of component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple schedules

Four experiments, each using the same six pigeons, investigated the effects of varying component durations and component reinforcement rates in multiple variable-interval schedules. Experiment 1 used unequal component durations in which one component was five times the duration of the other, and the shorter component was varied over conditions from 120 seconds to 5 seconds. The schedules were varied over five values for each pair of component durations. Sensitivity to reinforcement rate changes was the same at all component durations. In Experiment 2, both component durations were 5 seconds, and the schedules were again varied using both one and two response keys. Sensitivity to reinforcement was not different from the values found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, various manipulations, including body-weight changes, reinforcer duration changes, blackouts, hopper lights correlated with keylights, and overall reinforcement rate changes were carried out. No reliable increase in reinforcement sensitivity resulted from any manipulation. Finally, in Experiment 4, reinforcement rates in the two components were kept constant and unequal, and the component durations were varied. Shorter components produced significantly increased response rates normally in the higher reinforcement rate component, but schedule reversals at short component durations eliminated the response rate increases. The effects of component duration on multiple schedule performance cannot be interpreted as changing sensitivity to reinforcement nor to changing bias.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press schedules

Four White King pigeons pressed treadles for food reinforcement on several concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. The rate of reinforcement available for responding in one of the two component schedules was held constant at 30 reinforcers per hour. The rate of reinforcement available for responding in the other was varied from 120 to 60 to 15, and then to 30 reinforcers per hour. The relative rate of responding in each component schedule equalled the relative rate of reinforcement that the component provided. And, behavioral contrast, defined as an inverse relationship between the rate of responding in the constant component and the rate of reinforcement obtained by responding in the other component, occurred for all schedules.     

Preference for less segmented fixed-time components in concurrent-chain schedules of reinforcement

A concurrent-chain procedure was used to examine choice between segmented and less segmented response-independent schedules of reinforcement. A pair of independent, concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules were presented in the initial link, along with a 1.5-s changeover delay. A chained fixed-interval fixed-time and its corresponding tandem schedule constituted the terminal links. The length of the fixed-interval schedule in the terminal link was varied between 5 s and 30 s while that of the fixed-time schedule was kept at 5 s over conditions. The first components of both terminal-link schedules were accompanied by the same stimulus. Except in the baseline condition, the onset of the second component of the terminal-link chained schedule was accompanied by either a localized (key color) or a nonlocalized (dark houselight) stimulus change. Stimulus conditions were constant during the terminal-link tandem schedule. With three exceptions, pigeons demonstrated a slight preference for the tandem over the chained schedule in the terminal link. Furthermore, this preference varied inversely with the length of the first component. In general, these results are consistent with previous studies that reported an adverse effect on choice by segmenting an interval schedule into two or more components, but they are inconsistent with studies that reported preference for signaled over unsignaled delay of reinforcement.     

Choice between response units: The rate constancy model

In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random-interval and a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second-order fixed-ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute-rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple-response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.     

Preference for simple interval schedules of reinforcement in concurrent chains: Effects of segmentation ratio

A concurrent-chains procedure was used to examine pigeons' preferences between segmented and unsegmented terminal-link schedules of reinforcement. During the initial link, a pair of independent, concurrent variable-interval 60-s schedules was in effect. In the terminal link, reinforcement was provided by a chain fixed-interval fixed-interval schedule on one key and by a simple fixed-interval schedule with an equal interreinforcement interval in the other. The relative duration between the first and second components (segmentation ratio) in the terminal-link chained schedule was systematically varied while the terminal-link duration was kept constant at either 15 s or 30 s in two sets of conditions. With few exceptions, the simple schedule was preferred to the chained schedule. Furthermore, this preference was inversely related to the size of the segmentation ratio in the segmented schedule. When the segmentation ratio was smaller than 1:1, preference was more extreme for a 30-s condition than for a 15-s condition. However, preference decreased more rapidly in conditions with the longer terminal-link duration when the ratio increased. Taken together, these results were consistent with previous findings concerning the effect of the terminal-link duration on choice between segmented and unsegmented schedules. In addition, the data suggested that segmentation ratio in a segmented schedule constitutes another potent factor influencing preference for the unsegmented schedule.     

Temporal constraint on choice: Sensitivity and bias in multiple schedules

In multiple schedules of reinforcement, ratios of responses in successive components are relatively insensitive to ratios of obtained reinforcers. An analysis is proposed that attributes changes in absolute response rates to concurrent interactions between programmed reinforcement and extraneous reinforcement in other components. The analysis predicts that ratios of responses in successive components vary with reinforcer ratios, qualified by a term describing the reinforcement context, that is, programmed and extraneous reinforcers. Two main predictions from the analysis were confirmed in an experiment in which pigeons' responses were reinforced in the components of a multiple schedule and analog extraneous reinforcement was scheduled for an alternative response in each component. Sensitivity of response and time ratios to reinforcer ratios in the multiple schedules varied as a function of the rate of extraneous reinforcers. Bias towards responding in one component of the multiple schedule varied as an inverse function of the ratios of extraneous reinforcer rate in the two components. The data from this and previous studies of multiple-concurrent performance were accurately predicted by our analysis and supported our contention that the allocation of behavior in multiple-schedule components depends on the relative values of concurrently-available reinforcers within each component.     

A local model of concurrent performance

Concurrent procedures may be conceptualized as consisting of two pairs of schedules with only one pair operating at a time. One schedule of each pair arranges reinforcers for staying in the current alternative, and the other schedule arranges reinforcers for switching to the other alternative. These pairs alternate operation as the animal switches between choices. This analysis of the contingencies suggests that variables operating within an alternative produce behavior that conforms to the generalized matching law. Rats were exposed to one pair of stay and switch schedules in each condition, and the probabilities of reinforcement varied across conditions. Both run length and visit duration were power functions of the ratio of the probabilities of reinforcement for staying and switching. The local model, a model of performance on concurrent procedures, was derived from this power function. Performance on concurrent schedules was synthesized from the performances on the separate pairs. Both the generalized matching law and the local model fitted the synthesized concurrent performances. These results are consistent with the view that the contingencies in the alternative, the probability of stay and switch reinforcement, are responsible for performance consistent with the generalized matching law. These results are compatible with momentary maximizing and molar maximizing accounts of concurrent performance. Models of concurrent performance that posit comparisons among the alternatives are not easily applied to these results.