The logistics of choice

The generalized matching law (GML) is reconstructed as a logistic regression equation that privileges no particular value of the sensitivity parameter, a. That value will often approach 1 due to the feedback that drives switching that is intrinsic to most concurrent schedules. A model of that feedback reproduced some features of concurrent data. The GML is a law only in the strained sense that any equation that maps data is a law. The machine under the hood of matching is in all likelihood the very law that was displaced by the Matching Law. It is now time to return the Law of Effect to centrality in our science.     

A review of the concurrent-chains arrangement to assess intervention choice: 2018–2023

The purpose of this review is to summarize recent literature on the use of concurrent-chains arrangements in the assessment of preference for interventions (or intervention components) in the applied literature. The types of interventions and participants are described briefly, and procedural variations, ethical considerations, and recommendations for future research are discussed.     

Dislocations in basic-nickel decagonal Al–Ni–Co single quasicrystals

We present a study of dislocations in decagonal Al₇₀Ni₂₁Co₉ quasicrystals by means of diffraction contrast analysis as well as convergent-beam electron diffraction in the transmission electron microscope. The nickel-rich Al–Ni–Co quasicrystals show diffraction patterns characteristic of the basic-nickel decagonal phase exhibiting almost no diffuse scattering. We succeeded in growing this phase in the form of large single quasicrystals. The two-beam bright-field images show a homogeneous background and no striation contrast as reported for other Al–Ni–Co decagonal phases. We have, for the first time in a two-dimensional quasicrystal, observed the weak contrast-extinction condition.     

Substitution effects in a generalized token economy with pigeons

Pigeons made repeated choices between earning and exchanging reinforcer‐specific tokens (green tokens exchangeable for food, red tokens exchangeable for water) and reinforcer‐general tokens (white tokens exchangeable for food or water) in a closed token economy. Food and green food tokens could be earned on one panel; water and red water tokens could be earned on a second panel; white generalized tokens could be earned on either panel. Responses on one key produced tokens according to a fixed‐ratio schedule, whereas responses on a second key produced exchange periods, during which all previously earned tokens could be exchanged for the appropriate commodity. Most conditions were conducted in a closed economy, and pigeons distributed their token allocation in ways that permitted food and water consumption. When the price of all tokens was equal and low, most pigeons preferred the generalized tokens. When token‐production prices were manipulated, pigeons reduced production of the tokens that increased in price while increasing production of the generalized tokens that remained at a fixed price. The latter is consistent with a substitution effect: Generalized tokens increased and were exchanged for the more expensive reinforcer. When food and water were made freely available outside the session, token production and exchange was sharply reduced but was not eliminated, even in conditions when it no longer produced tokens. The results join with other recent data in showing sustained generalized functions of token reinforcers, and demonstrate the utility of token‐economic methods for assessing demand for and substitution among multiple commodities in a laboratory context.     

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.     

Behavioral effects of delayed timeouts from reinforcement

Timeouts are sometimes used in applied settings to reduce target responses, and in some circumstances delays are unavoidably imposed between the onset of a timeout and the offset of the response that produces it. The present study examined the effects of signaled and unsignaled timeouts in rats exposed to concurrent fixed‐ratio 1 fixed‐ratio 1 schedules of food delivery, where each response on one lever, the location of which changed across conditions, produced both food and a delayed 10‐s timeout. Delays of 0 to 38 s were examined. Delayed timeouts often, but not always, substantially reduced the number of responses emitted on the lever that produced timeouts relative to the number emitted on the lever that did not produce timeouts. In general, greater sensitivity was observed to delayed timeouts when they were signaled. These results demonstrate that delayed timeouts, like other delayed consequences, can affect behavior, albeit less strongly than immediate consequences.