Unification of models for choice between delayed reinforcers.

Two models for choice between delayed reinforcers, Fantino's delay-reduction theory and Killeen's incentive theory, are reviewed. Incentive theory is amended to incorporate the effects of arousal on alternate types of behavior that might block the reinforcement of the target behavior. This amended version is shown to differ from the delay-reduction theory in a term that is an exponential in incentive theory and a difference in delay-reduction theory. A power series approximation to the exponential generates a model that is formally identical with delay-reduction theory. Correlations between delay-reduction theory and the amended incentive theory show excellent congruence over a range of experimental conditions. Although the assumptions that gave rise to delay-reduction theory and incentive theory remain different and testable, the models deriving from the theories are unlikely to be discriminable by parametric experimental tests. This congruence of the models is recognized by naming the common model the delayed reinforcement model, which is then compared with other models of choice such as Killeen and Fetterman's (1988) behavioral theory of timing, Mazur's (1984) equivalence rule, and Vaughan's (1985) melioration theory.     

Predicting and scaling hens' preferences for topographically different responses

Six hens were exposed to several concurrent (second-order) variable-interval schedules in which the response requirements on the alternatives were varied. The response requirements were one key peck versus five key pecks, one key peck versus one door push, and five key pecks versus one door push. Response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched the obtained reinforcement ratios but were well described by the generalized matching law. Time and response bias estimates from two pairs of response requirements were used to predict bias in the third pairing. The predicted values were close to those obtained; this result supports the notion that both numerically and topographically different responses act as constant sources of bias within the generalized matching law. The differences between the response and time biases could be accounted for by the different times needed to complete each response requirement. The results also suggest that the door push is a useful operant for research with domestic hens.     

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.     

Resistance to reinforcement change in multiple and concurrent schedules assessed in transition and at steady state

Behavioral momentum theory relates resistance to change of responding in a multiple-schedule component to the total reinforcement obtained in that component, regardless of how the reinforcers are produced. Four pigeons responded in a series of multiple-schedule conditions in which a variable-interval 40-s schedule arranged reinforcers for pecking in one component and a variable-interval 360-s schedule arranged them in the other. In addition, responses on a second key were reinforced according to variable-interval schedules that were equal in the two components. In different parts of the experiment, responding was disrupted by changing the rate of reinforcement on the second key or by delivering response-independent food during a blackout separating the two components. Consistent with momentum theory, responding on the first key in Part 1 changed more in the component with the lower reinforcement total when it was disrupted by changes in the rate of reinforcement on the second key. However, responding on the second key changed more in the component with the higher reinforcement total. In Parts 2 and 3, responding was disrupted with free food presented during intercomponent blackouts, with extinction (Part 2) or variable-interval 80-s reinforcement (Part 3) arranged on the second key. Here, resistance to change was greater for the component with greater overall reinforcement. Failures of momentum theory to predict short-term differences in resistance to change occurred with disruptors that caused greater change between steady states for the richer component. Consistency of effects across disruptors may yet be found if short-term effects of disruptors are assessed relative to the extent of change observed after prolonged exposure.     

Human choice in concurrent ratio-interval schedules of reinforcement.

Seven undergraduates participated in a concurrent-choice experiment with monetary reinforcers. Response-independent analogues of variable-interval and variable-ratio schedules were used to assess whether subjects would maximize reinforcement rate. The optimal pattern of behavior, in terms of maximizing reinforcement rate, involved a large bias toward the ratio alternative, with only occasional sampling of the interval schedule. Most experiments with pigeons, however, demonstrate matching of response rates to reinforcement rates, with only slight biases for the ratio schedule. Although subjects in the present experiment allocated more time to the ratio alternative than required by matching, the magnitude of the bias did not approximate that predicted by a maximizing account. After exposure to clock stimuli correlated with the operation of each schedule, 1 subject's behavior did show a substantial level of bias, increasing the total number of reinforcers obtained, and lay at a point between the predictions of matching and maximizing. The other subjects, however, continued to respond less optimally. The present results can be accounted for by a view of matching that incorporates the effects of delayed reinforcement.     

Resistance To Change As A Function Of Stimulus-reinforcer And Location-reinforcer Contingencies

Pigeons responded on two keys in each component of a multiple concurrent schedule. In one series of conditions the distribution of reinforcers between keys within one component was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for key locations when summed across components. In a second series, reinforcer allocation between components was varied so as to produce changes in ratios of reinforcer totals for components, summed across key locations. In each condition, resistance to change was assessed by presenting response-independent reinforcers during intercomponent blackouts and (for the first series) by extinction of responding on both keys in both components. Resistance to change for response totals within a component was always greater for the component with the larger total reinforcer rate. However, resistance to change for response totals at a key location was not a positive function of total reinforcement for pecking that key; indeed, relative resistance to extinction for the two locations showed a weak negative relation to ratios of reinforcer totals for key location. These results confirm the determination of resistance to change by stimulus—reinforcer contingencies.     

Within-session Changes In Responding During Concurrent Variable-interval Schedules

Five rats and 4 pigeons responded for food delivered by several concurrent variable-interval schedules. The sum of the rates of reinforcement programmed for the two components varied from 15 to 480 reinforcers per hour in different conditions. Rates of responding usually changed within the experimental session in a similar manner for the two components of each concurrent schedule. The within-session changes were similar to previously reported changes during simple schedules that provided rates of reinforcement equal to the sum of all reinforcers obtained from the concurrent schedules. The number of changeovers also changed within sessions in a manner similar to the changes in instrumental responding. These results suggest that changeovers are governed by the same variables that govern instrumental responding. They also suggest that the within-session change in responding during each component of a concurrent schedule is determined by approximately the sum of the reinforcers obtained from both components when both components provide the same type of reinforcer.     

Residence time and choice in concurrent foraging schedules

Five pigeons were trained on a concurrent-schedule analogue of the “some patches are empty” procedure. Two concurrently available alternatives were arranged on a single response key and were signaled by red and green keylights. A subject could travel between these alternatives by responding on a second yellow “switching” key. Following a changeover to a patch, there was a probability (p) that a single reinforcer would be available on that alternative for a response after a time determined by the value of λ, a probability of reinforcement per second. The overall scheduling of reinforcers on the two alternatives was arranged nonindependently, and the available alternative was switched after each reinforcer. In Part 1 of the experiment, the probabilities of reinforcement, ρ_red and ρ_green, were equal on the two alternatives, and the arranged arrival rates of reinforcers, λ_red and λ_green, were varied across conditions. In Part 2, the reinforcer arrival times were arranged to be equal, and the reinforcer probabilities were varied across conditions. In Part 3, both parameters were varied. The results replicated those seen in studies that have investigated time allocation in a single patch: Both response and time allocation to an alternative increased with decreasing values of λ and with increasing values of ρ, and residence times were consistently greater than those that would maximize obtained reinforcer rates. Furthermore, both response- and time-allocation ratios undermatched mean reinforcer-arrival time and reinforcer-frequency ratios.     

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.     

A molar theory of reinforcement schedules

Behavior of subjects exposed to concurrent and individual interval and ratio schedules of reinforcement may be described in terms of a set of expressions relating the value of responses to their durations, a feedback equation relating reinforcement to response duration, and the assumption that subjects allocate their time among various responses so as to maximize value.