Choice, contingency discrimination, and foraging theory

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 355-373

  Baum, William M ^a   Schwendiman, Jed W ^b   Bell, Kenneth E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Choice; Contingency discriminability model; Foraging theory; Generalized matching law; Key peck; Pigeons; Visit duration

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008902967     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1999.71-355     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baum, W. M. (1974a). Chained concurrent schedules: Reinforcement as situation transition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 91-101.
2. Baum, W. M. (1974b). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231-242.
3. Baum, W. M. (1975). Time allocation in human vigilance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 45-53.
4. Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269-281.
5. Baum, W. M. (1981). Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 387-403.
6. Baum, W. M. (1982). Choice, changeover, and travel. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 35-49.
7. Baum, W. M., & Aparicio, C. F. (1999). Optimality and concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 75-89.
8. Baum, W. M., & Rachlin, H. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 861-874.
9. Boelens, H., & Kop, P. F. M. (1983). Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation of response alternatives. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 35-45.
10. Buckner, R. L., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (1993). Short-term and long-term effects of reinforcers on choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 293-307.
11. Davison, M. (1996). Stimulus effects on behavior allocation in three-alternative choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 149-168.
12. Davison, M., & Jenkins, P. E. (1985). Stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and schedule performance. Animal learning & Behavior, 13, 77-84.
13. Davison, M., & Jones, B. M. (1995). A quantitative analysis of extreme choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 147-162.
14. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Findley, J. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 123-144.
16. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
17. Herrnstein, R. J., & Vaughan, W. (1980). Melioration and behavioral allocation, In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.), Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior (pp. 143-176). New York: Academic Press.
18. Heyman, G. M. (1979). A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 41-51.
19. Hinson, J. M., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1983). Matching, maximizing, and hill-climbing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 321-331.
20. Houston, A. I., & McNamara, J. (1981). How to maximize reward rate on two variable-interval paradigms. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 367-396.
21. Houston, A. I., McNamara, J. M., & Sumida, B. H. (1987). Relative allocation on concurrent schedules can depend on schedule parameters when behavioral parameters are constant. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 127-131.
22. Lobb, B., & Davison, M. C. (1975). Preference in concurrent interval schedules: A systematic replication. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 191-197.
23. Miller, J. T., Saunders, S. S., & Bourland, G. (1980). The role of stimulus disparity in concurrently available reinforcement schedules. Animal learning & Behavior, 8, 635-641.
24. Myerson, J., & Miezin, F. M. (1980). The kinetics of choice: An operant systems analysis. Psychological Review, 87, 160-174.
25. Rachlin, H. (1978). A molar theory of reinforcement schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 345-360.
26. Shimp, C. P. (1966). Probabilistically reinforced choice behavior in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 443-455.
27. Shull, R. L., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: Some effects on relative performance measures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 517-527.
28. Stubbs, D. A., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1969). Concurrent responding with fixed and relative rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 887-895.
29. Taylor, R., & Davison, M. (1983). Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 191-198.
30. Todorov, J. C., Castro, J. M., Hanna, E. S., Bittencourt de Sa, M. C. N., & Barreto, M. de Q. (1983). Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 99-111.
31. Wearden, J. H. (1983). Undermatching and overmatching as deviations from the matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 332-340.
32. Wearden, J. H., & Burgess, I. S. (1982). Matching since Baum (1979). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 339-348.