| Abstract: | In two experiments deviations from matching earned higher overall reinforcement rates than did matching. In Experiment 1 response proportions were calculated over a 360-response moving average, updated with each response. Response proportions that differed from the nominal reinforcement proportions, by a criterion that was gradually increased, were eligible for reinforcement. Response proportions that did not differ from matching were not eligible for reinforcement. When the deviation requirement was relatively small, the contingency proved to be effective. However, there was a limit as to how far response proportions could be pushed from matching. Consequently, when the deviation requirement was large, overall reinforcement rate decreased and pecking was eventually extinguished. In Experiment 2 a discriminative stimulus was added to the procedure. The houselight was correlated with the relationship between response proportions and the nominal (programmed) reinforcement proportions. When the difference between response and reinforcement proportions met the deviation requirement, the light was white and responses were eligible for reinforcement. When the difference between response and reinforcement proportions failed to exceed the deviation requirement, the light was blue and responses were not eligible for reinforcement. With the addition of the light, it proved to be possible to shape deviations from matching without any apparent limit. Thus, in Experiment 2 overall reinforcement rate predicted choice proportions and relative reinforcement rate did not. In contrast, in previous experiments on the relationship between matching and overall reinforcement maximization, relative reinforcement rate was usually the better predictor of responding. The results show that whether overall or relative reinforcement rate better predicts choice proportions may in part be determined by stimulus conditions. |
