Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains when alternatives differ on multiple dimensions of reinforcement

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 89, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 49-69

  Kyonka, Elizabeth G E ^a   Grace, Randolph C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Acquisition; Concurrent chains; Key peck; Pigeons; Reinforcer immediacy; Reinforcer magnitude; Reinforcer probability

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COLOR VISION; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; LEARNING; MALE; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; ORIENTATION; PIGEONS AND DOVES; PROBLEM SOLVING; REINFORCEMENT; TIME PERCEPTION;

ANIMALS; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLOR PERCEPTION; COLUMBIDAE; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; MALE; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; ORIENTATION; PROBABILITY LEARNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); TIME PERCEPTION;

EID: 42249103333     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2008.89-49     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Alsop, B., & Elliffe, D. (1988). Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 21-36.
2. Anderson, N. H. (1962). Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science, 138, 817-818.
3. Anderson, N. H. (1968). A simple model for information integration. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 731-743). Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.
4. Baum, W. M., & Rachlin, H. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation. Journal, of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 861-874.
5. Berg, M. E., & Grace, R. C. (2004). Independence of terminal-link entry rate and immediacy in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 235-251.
6. Catania, A. C. (1963). Concurrent performances: A baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 299-300.
7. Chung, S.-H., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1967). Choice and delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 67-74.
8. Davison, M. (1983). Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 15-34.
9. Davison, M. (1988). Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 339-349.
10. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Fleshier, M., & Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 529-530.
12. Gallistel, C. R., Mark, T. A., King, A. P., & Latham, P. E. (2001). The rat approximates an ideal detector of changes in rates of reward: Implications for the law of effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 354-372.
13. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.
14. Grace, R. C. (1995). Independence of reinforcement delay and magnitude in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 255-276.
15. Grace, R. C., Bedell, M. A., & Nevin, J. A. (2002). Preference and resistance to change with constant-and variable-duration terminal links: Independence of reinforcement rate and magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 233-255.
16. Grace, R. C., Bragason, O., & McLean, A. P. (2003). Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 235-252.
17. Grace, R. C., & McLean, A. P. (2006). Rapid acquisition in concurrent chains: Evidence for a decision model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 181-202.
18. Hamblin, R. L., & Miller, H. L. (1977). Matching as a multivariate power law: Frequency of behavior versus frequency and magnitude of reinforcement. Learning and Motivation, 8, 113-125.
19. 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.
20. Killeen, P. (1972). The matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 489-495.
21. Killeen, P. R., Cate, H., & Tran, T. (1993). Scaling pigeons' choice of feeds: Bigger is better. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 203-217.
22. Kyonka, E. G. E., & Grace, R. C. (2007). Pigeons' choice and timing behavior in a rapid acquisition concurrent-chains procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 392-408.
23. Leon, M. I., & Gallistel, C. R. (1998). Self-stimulating rats combine subjective reward magnitude and subjective reward, rate multiplieatively. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 265-277.
24. Logue, A. W. (1998). Self-control. In W. T. O'Donohue (Ed.), Learning and behavior therapy (pp. 252-273). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
25. Logue, A. W., & Chavarro, A. (1987). Effect on choice of absolute and relative values of reinforcer delay, amount, and frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 280-291.
26. Logue, A. W., Forzano, L. B., & Tobin, H. (1992). Independence of reinforcer amount and delay: The generalized matching law and self-control in humans. Learning and Motivation, 23, 326-342.
27. Massaro, D. W., & Friedman, D. (1990). Models of integration given multiple sources of information. Psychological Review, 97, 225-252.
28. Mazur, J. E. (1988). Choice between small certain and large uncertain reinforcers. Animal Learning & Behavior, 16, 199-205.
29. 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.
30. Miller, H. L. (1976). Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 335-347.
31. Neuringer, A. J. (1967). Effects of reinforcement magnitude on choice and rate of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 417-424.
32. Rachlin, H. (1971). On the tautology of the matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 249-251.
33. 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.
34. Schneider, J. W. (1968). Effects of percentage reinforcement on choice in a concurrent chain schedule. Psychonomic Science, 12, 211-212.
35. Schneider, J. W. (1973). Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: A comparison of concurrent performances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 461-471.
36. Schofield, G., & Davison, M. (1997). Nonstable concurrent choice in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 219-232.
37. Spetch, M. L., & Dunn, R. (1987). Choice between reliable and unreliable outcomes: Mixed percentage-reinforcement in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 219-232.
38. Todorov, J. C. (1973). Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 451-458.