Response form, force, and number: Effects on concurrent-schedule performance

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 70, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 45-68

  Sumpter, Catherine E ^a   Temple, William ^a   Foster, T Mary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Concurrent schedules; Door push; Hens; Key peck; Response force; Response form; Second order schedules

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039047897     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-45     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Alling, K., & Poling, A. (1995). The effects of differing response-force requirements on fixed-ratio responding of rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 331-346.
2. Baum, W. M. (1973). Time allocation and negative reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 313-322.
3. 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.
4. Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269-281.
5. Beautrais, P. G., & Davison, M. C. (1977). Response and time allocation in concurrent second-order schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 61-69.
6. Bolles, R. C. (1970). Species-specific defense reactions and avoidance learning. Psychological Review, 77, 32-48.
7. Brownstein, A. J., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1968). Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay-in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 683-688.
8. Catania, A. C. (1963). Concurrent performances: A baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 299-300.
9. Catania, A. C. (1973). The concept of the operant in the analysis of behavior. Behaviorism, 1, 103-116.
10. Chelonis, J. J., & Logue, A. W. (1996). Effects of response type on pigeons' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 297-307.
11. Chung, S. (1965). Effects of effort on response rate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 8, 1-7.
12. Cohen, S. L. (1975). Concurrent second-order schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 333-341.
13. Davison, M., & Ferguson, A. (1978). The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 283-295.
14. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Dawkins, M. S., & Beardsley, T. (1986). Reinforcing properties of access to litter in liens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 15, 351-364.
16. de Villiers, P. (1977). Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 233-287). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Elliffe, D., & Alsop, B. (1996). Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 445-463.
18. Findley, J. D. (1962). An experimental outline for building and exploring multi-operant behavior repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 113-166.
19. Hanson, J., & Green, L. (1986). Time and response matching with topographically different responses. Animal Learning & Behavior, 14, 435-442.
20. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of the frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
21. Hineline, P. N., & Rachlin, H. (1969). Notes on fixed-ratio and fixed-interval escape responding in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 533-538.
22. Hogan, J. A., & Roper, T. J. (1978). A comparison of the properties of different reinforcers. In J. S. Rosenblatt, R. A. Hinde, C. Beer & M. C. Busnell (Eds.), Advances in the study of behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 156-255). New York: Academic Press.
23. Hollard, V., & Davison, M. (1971). Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 375-380.
24. Hunter, I., & Davison, M. (1982). Independence of response force and reinforcement rate on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 183-197.
25. Kelleher, R. T. (1960). Conditioned reinforcement in second-order schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9, 475-485.
26. Lee, J. K., & Gollub, L. R. (1971). Second-order schedules with fixed-ratio components: Variation of component size. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 303-310.
27. Lobb, B., & Davison, M. C. (1975). Performance in concurrent interval schedules: A systematic replication. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 191-197.
28. Matthews, L. R., & Temple, W. (1979). Concurrent schedule assessment of food preferences in cows. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 245-254.
29. McAdie, T. M., Foster, T. M., & Temple, W. (1996). Concurrent schedules: Quantifying the aversiveness of noise. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 37-54.
30. McSweeney, F. K. (1978). Prediction of concurrent key-peck treadle-press responding from simple schedule performance. Animal learning & Behavior, 6, 444-450.
31. Miller, H. L., Jr. (1976). Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 335-347.
32. Myers, D. L., & Myers, L. E. (1977). Undermatching: A reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 203-214.
33. Seligman, M. E. P., & Hager, J. L. (1972). Biological boundaries of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
34. Shettleworth, S. J. (1989). Animals foraging in the lab: Problems and promises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 81-87.
35. 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.
36. Stubbs, D. A., Pliskoff, S. S., & Reid, H. M. (1977). Concurrent schedules: A quantitative relation between changeover behavior and its consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 85-96.
37. Sumpter, C. E., Foster, T. M., & Temple, W. (1995). Predicting and scaling hens' preferences for topographically different responses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 151-163.
38. Temple, W., Scown, J. M., & Foster, T. M. (1995). Changeover delay and concurrent-schedule performance in domestic hens. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 71-95.
39. Thomas, J. R., & Stubbs, A. (1966). Stimulus control of temporally spaced responding in second-order schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 175-183.
40. Wearden, J. H., & Burgess, I. S. (1982). Matching since Baum (1979). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 339-348.
41. Wheatley, K. L., & Engberg, L. A. (1978). Choice performance in several concurrent key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 181-190.