DOES SENSITIVITY TO MAGNITUDE DEPEND ON THE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF REINFORCEMENT?
Corresponding Author
Randolph C. Grace
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY AND UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND
University of Canterbury, Department of Psychology, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand (e-mail: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorOrn Bragason
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY AND UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Randolph C. Grace
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY AND UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND
University of Canterbury, Department of Psychology, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand (e-mail: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorOrn Bragason
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY AND UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Our research addressed the question of whether sensitivity to relative reinforcer magnitude in concurrent chains depends on the distribution of reinforcer delays when the terminal-link schedules are equal. In Experiment 1, 12 pigeons responded in a two-component procedure. In both components, the initial links were concurrent variable-interval 40 s variable-interval 40 s, and the terminal links were both 20-s interval schedules in which responses were reinforced by either 4 s of grain in one, or 2 s of grain in the other. The only difference between the components was whether the terminal-link schedules were fixed interval or variable intervals. For all subjects, the relative rate of responding in the initial links for the terminal link that produced the 4-s reinforcer was greater when the terminal links were fixed-interval schedules than when they were variable-interval schedules. This result is contrary to the prediction of Grace's (1994) contextual choice model, but is consistent with both Mazur's (2001) hyperbolic value-added model and Killeen's (1985) incentive theory. In Experiment 2, 4 pigeons responded in a concurrent-chains procedure in which 4-s or 2-s reinforcers were provided independently of responding according to equal fixed-time or mixed-time schedules. Preference for the 4-s reinforcer increased as the variability of the intervals comprising the mixed-time schedules was decreased. Generalized-matching sensitivity of initial-link response allocation to relative reinforcer magnitude was proportional to the geometric mean of the terminal-link delays.
REFERENCES
- Alsop, B., & Davison, M. (1988). Concurrent-chain performance: Effects of absolute and relative terminal-link entry frequency. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 351–365.
- Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.
- Baum, W. M., & Rachlin, H. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 861–874.
- Davison, M. C. (1969). Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 247–252.
- Davison, M. (1988). Concurrent schedules: Interactions of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 339–349.
- Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Davison, M. C., & Temple, W. (1973). Preference for fixed-interval schedules: An alternative model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 393–403.
- Duncan, B., & Fantino, E. (1970). Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 73–86.
- Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730.
- Fantino, E., Preston, R. A., & Dunn, R. (1993). Delay reduction: Current status. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 159–169.
- Fleshler, M., & Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 529–530.
- Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113–129.
- Grace, R. C. (1995). Independence of delay and magnitude of reinforcement in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 255–276.
- Grace, R. C. (1999). The matching law and amount-dependent exponential discounting as accounts of self-control choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 27–44.
- Grace, R. C., Bedell, M. A., & Nevin, J. A. (2002). Preference and resistance to change with constant- and variable-duration terminal links: Effects of reinforcement rate and magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 233–255.
- Grace, R. C., & Bragason, O. (2004). Does the terminal-link effect depend on duration or reinforcement rate? Behavioural Processes, 67, 67–79.
- Green, L., & Snyderman, M. (1980). Choice between rewards differing in amount and delay: Toward a choice model of self control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 135–147.
- Herrnstein, R. J. (1964a). Secondary reinforcement and rate of primary reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 27–36.
- Herrnstein, R. J. (1964b). Aperiodicity as a factor in choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 179–182.
- Ito, M., & Asaki, K. (1982). Choice behavior of rats in a concurrent-chains schedule: Amount and delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 383–392.
- Keller, J. V., & Gollub, L. R. (1977). Duration and rate of reinforcement as determinants of concurrent responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 28, 145–153.
- Killeen, P. (1968). On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 263–269.
- Killeen, P. (1972). The matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 489–495.
- Killeen, P. (1982). Incentive theory: II. Models for choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 217–232.
- Killeen, P. R. (1985). Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 407–417.
- Kirby, K. N., & Marakovic, N. N. (1996). Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 100–104.
- Leon, M. I., & Gallistel, C. R. (1998). Self-stimulating rats combine subjective reward magnitude and subjective reward rate multiplicatively. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 265–277.
- Logue, A. W., Rodriguez, M. L., Peña-Correal, T. E., & Mauro, B. C. (1984). Choice in a self-control paradigm: Quantification of experience-based differences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 53–67.
- MacEwen, D. (1972). The effects of terminal-link fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules on responding under concurrent chained schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 253–261.
- Mazur, J. E. (1984). Tests for an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 426–436.
- Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of choice. Psychological Review, 108, 96–112.
- McLean, A. P., & Blampied, N. M. (2001). Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: Independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75, 25–42.
- Navarick, D. J., & Fantino, E. (1976). Self-control and general models of choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 75–87.
- Neuringer, A. J. (1967). Effects of reinforcement magnitude on choice and rate of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 417–424.
- Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice, and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15–22.
- Rachlin, H. (1995). Self-control: Beyond commitment. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 18, 109–159. (includes commentary).
- Rodriguez, M. L., & Logue, A. W. (1986). Independence of the amount and delay ratios in the generalized matching law. Animal Learning & Behavior, 14, 29–37.
- Snyderman, M. (1983). Delay and amount of reward in a concurrent chain. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 437–447.
- Squires, N., & Fantino, E. (1971). A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 27–38.
- Stubbs, D. A., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1969). Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 887–895.
- Todorov, J. C. (1973). Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 451–458.
- White, K. G., & Pipe, M. E. (1987). Sensitivity to reinforcer duration in a self-control procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48, 235–249.
- Williams, B. A., & Dunn, R. (1991). Preference for conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 37–46.