Constituents of response rates.

Response rate and the proportion of time pigeons allocated to a key-pecking activity were measured on several basic types of reinforcement schedules. Reinforcement frequency was varied within each type of basic schedule, and the effects on two constituents of response rate were noted. Propensity, the proportion of time the birds spent on a platform in front of the key, showed very consistent effects as reinforcement frequency varied: in general, it decreased when reinforcement frequency markedly decreased and it increased when reinforcement frequency increased. Speed, key pecks per unit of time spent on the platform, showed inconsistent effects when reinforcement frequency varied. Consequently, response rate showed less consistent effects than did propensity. Cumulative response records demonstrated the existence of several different types of transitions or boundary states between the key-pecking activity and other activities. The types of transitions that occurred between activities depended on both the type of reinforcement schedule and the frequency of reinforcement. The propensity data support the position that general laws of behavior can be based on temporal measures of behavior. The speed data suggest that, if a complete assessment of the dynamic properties of behavior is to be achieved, measures of behavior must incorporate the structural variations in the operant unit.

[1]  W N Schoenfeld,et al.  Behavior under extended exposure to a high-value fixed interval reinforcement schedule. , 1958, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  D. Blough,et al.  The distribution of interresponse times in the pigeon during variable-interval reinforcement. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  W M Baum,et al.  Choice as time allocation. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  T. F. Gilbert Fundamental dimensional properties of the operant. , 1958, Psychological review.

[5]  B. Skinner Superstition in the pigeon. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  G. S. Reynolds,et al.  A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  A J Brownstein,et al.  Concurrent schedules of response-independent reinforcement: duration of a reinforcing stimulus. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  G. S. Reynolds,et al.  An analysis of response and time matching to reinforcement in concurrent ratio-interval schedules. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  W M Baum,et al.  On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  J. Rand Behaviors observed during S- in a simple discrimination learning task. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  B A Schneider,et al.  A two-state analysis of fixed-interval responding in the pigeon. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  W H Morse,et al.  Fixed-interval reinforcement of running in a wheel. , 1958, Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

[13]  William M. Baum,et al.  BEHAVIORAL CONTRAST OF TIME ALLOCATION1 , 1976 .

[14]  A. Catania,et al.  Concurrent performances: reinforcement interaction and response independence. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  A C CATANIA,et al.  Behavioral contrast in a multiple and concurrent schedule of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  A. Brownstein,et al.  Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  C. Shimp,et al.  Reinforcement of behavioral patterns: shaping a scallop. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  H. Rachlin Contrast and Matching. , 1973 .