Relative reinforcer rates and magnitudes do not control concurrent choice independently

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 169-185

  Elliffe, Douglas ^a   Davison, Michael ^a   Landon, Jason ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Choice; Concurrent schedules; Generalized matching; Key peck; Pigeons; Reinforcer magnitude; Reinforcer rate

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; PIGEONS AND DOVES; REINFORCEMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLUMBIDAE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 55449127265     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2008.90-169     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Akaike, H. (1969). Fitting autoregressive models for prediction. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 21, 243-247.
2. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716-723.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Baum, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269-281.
6. Baum, W. M. (1983). Matching, statistics, and common sense. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 499-501.
7. Baum, W. M., & Rachlin, H. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 861-874.
8. 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.
9. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd. Ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
10. Davison, M. (1983). Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 15-34.
11. Davison, M. (1988). Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 339-349.
12. Davison, M., & Baum, W. M. (2000). Choice in a variable environment: Every reinforcer counts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 1-24.
13. Davison, M., & Baum, W. M. (2003). Every reinforcer counts: Reinforcer magnitude and local preference. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 95-129.
14. Davison, M., & Hogsden, I. (1984). Concurrent variable-interval schedule performance: Fixed versus mixed reinforcer durations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 169-182.
15. Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Davison, M., & Nevin, J. A. (1999). Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: An integration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 439-482.
17. Elliffe, D. (2006, May). Problems in comparing quantitative models: Variability, replication, and constraint. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for the Quantitative Analysis of Behavior, Atlanta GA.
18. 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.
19. Epstein, R. (1981). Amount consumed as a function of magazine-cycle duration. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 1, 63-66.
20. Epstein, R. (1985). Amount consumed varies as a function of feeder design. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 121-125.
21. Fantino, E., Squires, N., Delbrück, N., & Peterson, C. (1972). Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 35-43.
22. Findley, J. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 123-144.
23. Grace, R. C. (1995). Independence of reinforcement delay and magnitude in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 255-276.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Killeen, P. R. (1972). The matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 489-495.
29. Krägeloh, C. U., Elliffe, D. M., & Davison, M. (2006). Contingency discriminability and peak shift in concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 11-30.
30. Landon, J., Davison, M., & Elliffe, D. (2002). Concurrent schedules: Short- and long-term effects of reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77, 257-271.
31. Landon, J., Davison, M., & Elliffe, D. (2003). Concurrent schedules: Reinforcer magnitude effects. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 79, 351-365.
32. 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.
33. Lobb, B., & Davison, M. C. (1975). Performance in concurrent interval schedules: A systematic replication. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 191-197.
34. 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.
35. Marascuilo, L. A., & McSweeney, M. (1977). Nonparametric and distribution-free methods for the social sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
36. 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.
37. Nevin, J. A. (1984). Quantitative analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 421-434.
38. Prelec, D. (1984). The assumptions underlying the generalized matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 101-107.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
42. 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.
43. Taylor, R., & Davison, M. (1983). Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 191-198.
44. Todorov, J. C. (1973). Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 451-458.
45. Todorov, J. C., Hanna, E. S., & Bittencourt de Sá, M. C. N. (1984). Frequency versus magnitude of reinforcement: New data with a different procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 157-167.
46. Todorov, J. C., Oliveira Castro, J. M., Hanna, E. S., Bittencourt de Sá, M. C. N., & Barreto, M. Q. (1983). Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 99-111.
47. Williams, B. A., & Fantino, E. (1978). Effects on choice of reinforcer delay and conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 77-86.