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 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.     

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.     

Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding

The duration and frequency of food presentation were varied in concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In the first experiment, in which pigeons were exposed to a succession of eight different schedules, neither relative duration nor relative frequency of reinforcement had as great an effect on response distribution as they have when they are manipulated separately. These results supported those previously reported by Todorov (1973) and Schneider (1973). In a second experiment, each of seven pigeons was exposed to only one concurrent schedule in which the frequency and/or duration of reinforcement differed on the two keys. Under these conditions, each pigeon's relative rate of response closely matched the relative total access to food that each schedule provided. This result suggests that previous failures to obtain matching may be due to factors such as an insufficient length of exposure to each schedule or to the pigeons' repeated exposure to different concurrent schedules.     

Preference for intermittent reinforcement

Two experiments were conducted demonstrating that under certain conditions pigeons may peck at a higher rate on a key that produces intermittent reinforcement following a delay than on one that always produces reinforcement following the same delay duration. In both experiments, concurrent chain schedules were employed. In Experiment I, a single peck on one key led to a white light and a delay of 15 sec, which always terminated with food. A peck on the other key led to its illumination by one of two colored lights and a delay period of 15 sec. The delay was followed by either food presentation or timeout, either one lasting 3 sec. In a control group, the lights on this key were not correlated with food or timeout. Under the correlated stimuli, birds more often pecked the key leading to intermittent reinforcement, whereas with uncorrelated stimuli they pecked the key leading to the white light and 100% reinforcement. In Experiment II, concurrent variable-interval schedules were employed in the first link. The results showed generally that the relative rate was higher on the key leading to intermittent reinforcement when the stimuli were correlated with reinforcement and timeout than on the key leading to 100% reinforcement. There was some indication that this performance was affected by (1) the duration of the delay, (2) the percentage of reinforcement on the key yielding the higher percentage of reinforcement (the key with the white light), and (3) prior experimental conditions.     

Choosing among multiple alternatives: Relative and overall reinforcer rates

Choice behavior among two alternatives has been widely researched, but fewer studies have examined the effect of multiple (more than two) alternatives on choice. Two experiments investigated whether changing the overall reinforcer rate affected preference among three and four concurrently scheduled alternatives. Experiment 1 trained six pigeons on concurrent schedules with three alternatives available simultaneously. These alternatives arranged reinforcers in a ratio of 9:3:1 with the configuration counterbalanced across pigeons. The overall rate of reinforcement was varied across conditions. Preference between the pair of keys arranging the 9:3 reinforcer ratio was less extreme than the pair arranging the 3:1 reinforcer ratio regardless of overall reinforcer rate. This difference was attributable to the richer alternative receiving fewer responses per reinforcer than the other alternatives. Experiment 2 trained pigeons on concurrent schedules with four alternatives available simultaneously. These alternatives arranged reinforcers in a ratio of 8:4:2:1, and the overall reinforcer rate was varied. Next, two of the alternatives were put into extinction and the random interval duration was changed from 60 s to 5 s. The ratio of absolute response rates was independent of interval length across all conditions. In both experiments, an analysis of sequences of visits following each reinforcer showed that the pigeons typically made their first response to the richer alternative irrespective of which alternative was just reinforced. Performance on these three‐ and four‐alternative concurrent schedules is not easily extrapolated from corresponding research using two‐alternative concurrent schedules.     

Momentary maximizing in concurrent schedules with a minimum interchangeover interval

Eight pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules with a minimum interchangeover time programmed as a consequence of changeovers. In Experiment 1 the reinforcement schedules remained constant while the minimum interchangeover time varied from 0 to 200 s. Relative response rates and relative time deviated from relative reinforcement rates toward indifference with long minimum interchangeover times. In Experiment 2 different reinforcement ratios were scheduled in successive experimental conditions with the minimum interchangeover time constant at 0, 2, 10, or 120 s. The exponent of the generalized matching equation was close to 1.0 when the minimum interchangeover time was 0 s (the typical procedure for concurrent schedules without a changeover delay) and decreased as that duration was increased. The data support the momentary maximizing theory and contradict molar maximizing theories and the melioration theory.     

Timeout postponement without increased reinforcement frequency

Three experiments were conducted to examine pigeons' postponement of signaled extinction periods (timeouts) from a schedule of food reinforcement when such responding neither decreased overall timeout frequency nor increased the overall frequency of food reinforcement. A discrete-trial procedure was used in which a response during the first 5 s of a trial postponed an otherwise immediate 60-s timeout to a later part of that same trial but had no effect on whether the timeout occurred. During time-in periods, responses on a second key produced food according to a random-interval 20-s schedule. In Experiment 1, the response-timeout interval was 45 s under postponement conditions and 0 s under extinction conditions (responses were ineffective in postponing timeouts). The percentage of trials with a response was consistently high when the timeout-postponement contingency was in effect and decreased to low levels when it was discontinued under extinction conditions. In Experiment 2, the response-timeout interval was also 45 s but postponement responses increased the duration of the timeout, which varied from 60 s to 105 s across conditions. Postponement responding was maintained, generally at high levels, at all timeout durations, despite sometimes large decreases in the overall frequency of food reinforcement. In Experiment 3, timeout duration was held constant at 60 s while the response-timeout interval was varied systematically across conditions from 0 s to 45 s. Postponement responding was maintained under all conditions in which the response-timeout interval exceeded 0 s (the timeout interval in the absence of a response). In some conditions of Experiment 3, which were designed to control for the immediacy of food reinforcement and food-correlated (time-in) stimuli, responding postponed timeout but the timeout was delayed whether a response occurred or not. Responding was maintained for 2 of 3 subjects, suggesting that behavior was negatively reinforced by timeout postponement rather than positively reinforced by the more immediate presentation of food or food-correlated (time-in) stimuli.     

Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances

Frequency and magnitude of reinforcement were varied in concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. The relative response rate to the two stimuli did not support the notion that choice approximately matches relative total access to food (the product of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement in one schedule divided by the sum of products of frequency and magnitude in both schedules). Relative response rates matched relative reinforcement value when that measure was adjusted to give more emphasis to reinforcement frequency than to reinforcement duration.     

Timescale invariance and Weber's law in choice

Pigeons were exposed to concurrent schedules for which reinforcement was alternately available at different times for each of two choices. In Experiment 1 (in which reinforcement times progressed arithmetically), overall, but not relative, response rate was timescale invariant. In Experiment 2 (in which reinforcement times progressed geometrically and were more spaced out), there was temporal control at all reinforcement times, but the amplitude of left-right response alternation decreased as time in the trial increased. These results indicate that the temporal regulation of both overall and relative response rates conforms to Weber's law although relative rate is heavily influenced by processes other than timing. It also adds support to the idea that overall and relative response rate reflects the operation of two independent processes.     

Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules

Local patterns of responding were studied when pigeons pecked for food in concurrent variable-interval schedules (Experiment I) and in multiple variable-interval schedules (Experiment II). In Experiment I, similarities in the distribution of interresponse times on the two keys provided further evidence that responding on concurrent schedules is determined more by allocation of time than by changes in local pattern of responding. Relative responding in local intervals since a preceding reinforcement showed consistent deviations from matching between relative responding and relative reinforcement in various postreinforcement intervals. Response rates in local intervals since a preceding changeover showed that rate of responding is not the same on both keys in all postchangeover intervals. The relative amount of time consumed by interchangeover times of a given duration approximately matched relative frequency of reinforced interchangeover times of that duration. However, computer simulation showed that this matching was probably a necessary artifact of concurrent schedules. In Experiment II, when component durations were 180 sec, the relationship between distribution of interresponse times and rate of reinforcement in the component showed that responding was determined by local pattern of responding in the components. Since responding on concurrent schedules appears to be determined by time allocation, this result would establish a behavioral difference between multiple and concurrent schedules. However, when component durations were 5 sec, local pattern of responding in a component (defined by interresponse times) was less important in determining responding than was amount of time spent responding in a component (defined by latencies). In fact, with 5-sec component durations, the relative amount of time spent responding in a component approximately matched relative frequency of reinforcement in the component. Thus, as component durations in multiple schedules decrease, multiple schedules become more like concurrent schedules, in the sense that responding is affected by allocation of time rather than by local pattern of responding.     

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.     

ALTERNATIVE REINFORCEMENT INCREASES RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: PAVLOVIAN OR OPERANT CONTINGENCIES?

Two multiple-schedule experiments with pigeons examined the effect of adding food reinforcement from an alternative source on the resistance of the reinforced response (target response) to the decremental effects of satiation and extinction. In Experiment 1, key pecks were reinforced by food in two components according to variable-interval schedules and, in some conditions, food was delivered according to variable-time schedules in one of the components. The rate of key pecking in a component was negatively related to the proportion of reinforcers from the alternative (variable-time) source. Resistance to satiation and extinction, in contrast, was positively related to the overall rate of reinforcement in the component. Experiment 2 was conceptually similar except that the alternative reinforcers were contingent on a specific concurrent response. Again, the rate of the target response varied as a function of its relative reinforcement, but its resistance to satiation and extinction varied directly with the overall rate of reinforcement in the component stimulus regardless of its relative reinforcement. Together the results of the two experiments suggest that the relative reinforcement of a response (the operant contingency) determines its rate, whereas the stimulus-reinforcement contingency (a Pavlovian contingency) determines its resistance to change.     

Increased reinforcement when timeout from avoidance includes access to a safe place

Three experiments investigated the reinforcing value of access to a safe place during timeout from an avoidance schedule. Rats were trained on conjoint schedules in which responding both postponed shock on a free-operant avoidance schedule and produced periods of timeout on fixed-ratio schedules. In some conditions, a shelf was inserted into the operant chamber during timeout, enabling subjects to get off the grid floor. The combination of timeout and shelf maintained substantially higher response rates than the baseline avoidance schedule with ratio requirements as high as 90 (Experiment I). Adding the shelf to timeouts in one component of multiple fixed-ratio schedules of timeout resulted in higher response rates in the component where the shelf was included (Experiment II). When timeouts with and without the shelf were arranged on concurrent schedules, the shelf-timeout combination was preferred, even when of shorter duration than timeout alone (Experiment III). In all three experiments, subjects climbed on the shelf, although all shocks were cancelled during timeout periods. The results could not be accounted for solely in terms of the reinforcing properties of changes in shock rates, but required an interpretation that ascribed conditioned reinforcing value to stimuli associated with such changes.     

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.     

Income maximizing on concurrent ratio-interval schedules of reinforcement

Three experiments examined the effect of food availability on pigeons' choice behavior under concurrent schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, 3 pigeons earned their daily food ration by choosing, in 30-min sessions, between concurrent variable-ratio 30 variable-interval 40-s schedules. Food presentations during both schedules lasted 2 or 12 s, depending upon the condition. Relative variable-ratio response rate was inversely related to hopper duration. In Experiment 2, 4 pigeons received their daily feeding by responding on the same schedule pair as in Experiment 1 (with 4-s food presentations) in sessions that varied in length from 10 to 30 min, depending on the condition. The length of a vertical slit projected on a response key increased with time so that “passage of time” might be more easily discriminable. As session duration decreased, relative variable-ratio response rate increased. In Experiment 3, 4 pigeons chose between two variable-interval 40-s schedules. One schedule operated without regard to the schedule selected, whereas the other operated only when the subject responded in its presence (dependent). Although these schedules had the same feedback function, preference for the dependent variable interval increased as session duration decreased from 30 to 10 min. The preference changes in these studies reveal the operation of an income-maximizing process in choice.     

Concurrent-chains schedules as a method to study choice between alcohol-associated conditioned reinforcers

An extensive body of research using concurrent-chains schedules of reinforcement has shown that choice for one of two differentially valued food-associated stimuli is dependent upon the overall temporal context in which those stimuli are embedded. The present experiments examined whether the concurrent chains procedure was useful for the study of behavior maintained by alcohol and alcohol-associated stimuli. In Experiment 1, rats responded on concurrent-chains schedules with equal variable-interval (VI) 10-s schedules in the initial links. Across conditions, fixed-interval schedules in the terminal links were varied to yield 1∶1, 9∶1, and 1∶9 ratios of alcohol delivery. Initial-link response rates reflected changes in terminal-link schedules, with greater relative responding in the rich terminal link. In Experiment 2, terminal-link schedules remained constant with a 9∶1 ratio of alcohol delivery rates while the length of two equal duration initial-link schedules was varied. Preference for the rich terminal link was less extreme when initial links were longer (i.e., the initial-link effect), as has been previously reported with food reinforcers. This result suggests that the conditioned reinforcing value of an alcohol-associated stimulus depends on the temporal context in which it is embedded. The concurrent-chains procedure and quantitative models of concurrent chains performance may provide a useful framework within which to study how contextual variables modulate preference for drug-associated conditioned reinforcers.     

Effects of reinforcement context on choice

Two experiments investigated the effects of successive reinforcement contexts on choice. In the first, concurrent variable-interval schedules of primary reinforcement operated during the initial links of concurrent chains. The rate of this reinforcement arranged by the concurrent schedules was decreased across conditions: When it was higher than the terminal-link rate, preference for the higher frequency initial-link schedule increased relative to baseline. (During baseline, a standard concurrent-schedule procedure was in effect). When the initial-link reinforcement rate was lower than the terminal-link rate, preference converged toward indifference. In the second experiment, a chain schedule was available on a third key while a concurrent schedule was in effect on the side keys. When the terminal link of the chain schedule was produced, the side keys became inoperative. Availability of the chain schedule did not affect choice between the concurrent schedules. These results show that only when successive reinforcement contexts are produced by choice responding do those successive contexts affect choice in concurrent schedules.     

Fixed-ratio punishment by timeout of concurrent variable-interval behavior

Pigeons' responding was maintained by two concurrently available variable-interval reinforcement schedules. A fixed-ratio punishment schedule of timeout periods from the concurrent reinforcement schedules was arranged for responding during one of the variable-interval schedules. The greater the probability of a timeout after a response on the punished variable-interval schedule (the smaller the fixed ratio that produced timeout), the greater the decline in the relative punished response rates. Relative reinforcement rates remained invariant when relative response rates declined. Both behavioral contrast and induction effects were observed on the unpunished variable-interval schedule as a function of timeout punishment of the other schedule.     

Reinforcement and punishment effects in concurrent schedules: A test of two models

The joint effects of punishment and reinforcement on the pigeon's key-peck response were examined in three choice experiments conducted to compare predictions of Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model with those made by Deluty's (1976) and Deluty and Church's (1978) model of punishment. In Experiment 1, the addition of equal punishment schedules to both alternatives of a concurrent reinforcement schedule enhanced the preference exhibited for the more frequent reinforcement alternative. Experiment 2 demonstrated decreases in the absolute response rate for each member of a concurrent reinforcement schedule when increasing frequencies of punishment were added to each alternative. Experiment 3 found that preference for the denser of two reinforcement schedules diminished when the absolute frequencies of reinforcement were increased by a constant factor and conditions of punishment for both alternatives were held constant. Diminished preferences were obtained regardless of whether the frequency of punishment associated with the denser reinforcement schedule was greater or less than that associated with the lean reinforcement alternative. The results from all three experiments uniquely supported Farley and Fantino's (1978) subtractive model of punishment and reinforcement.