Delay of reinforcers in a concurrent-chain schedule: An extension of the hyperbolic-decay model.

Six pigeons were trained in concurrent-chain schedules with equal aperiodic initial links and delays to reinforcers in the terminal links. The terminal links always lasted 30 s. In Experiment 1, two reinforcers were delivered in each terminal link, with the first reinforcer delivered either 1 s (Experiment 1A) or 5 s (Experiment 1B) after choice. In these experiments, the delay between the first and second reinforcers in one terminal link was 10 s, and the delay between the first and second reinforcers on the other key was varied. This variation produced little change in preference. In Experiment 1C, the first and second delays on one key were 10 s, and on the other key they were varied within the restriction that the sum of delays was 20 s. Preference for the varied terminal link increased as the first delay was decreased. A hyperbolic model of the value of reinforcer delay provided a good description of the data from Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, a single reinforcer was delivered in each terminal link after a delay of either 0.2 or 19.8 s, and these delays were reversed between conditions. The initial-link schedule providing terminal-link access was varied from means of 5 s to 480 s. As the initial-link duration was increased, preference for the shorter delay became less extreme. An extension of the hyperbolic-decay model, in which the decay constant was a hyperbolic function of the initial-link duration, described the results well. Differences between the procedure used here (constant-duration terminal links) and that used in conventional concurrent-chain research precludes use of the model as a general account of concurrent-chain performance.

[1]  M. Commons The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value , 2013 .

[2]  E. Fantino,et al.  A molecular analysis of choice on concurrent-chains schedules. , 1987, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  M. Davison,et al.  Some aspects of preference between immediate and delayed periods of reinforcement. , 1986 .

[4]  J. E. Mazur Fixed and variable ratios and delays: further tests of an equivalence rule. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[5]  J. E. Mazur,et al.  Influences of delay and rate of reinforcement on discrete-trial choice. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[6]  M. Davison,et al.  Stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and schedule performance , 1985 .

[7]  J. E. Mazur Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. , 1984 .

[8]  W. R. Poniewaz Effects on preference of reinforcement delay, number of reinforcers, and terminal-link duration. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  E Fantino,et al.  Choice: Some quantitative relations. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  R. Shull,et al.  Delay or rate of food delivery as determiners of response rate. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  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.

[12]  M C Davison,et al.  Preference for fixed-interval schedules: effects of initial-link length. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  M C Davison,et al.  Preference for fixed-interval schedules: an alternative model. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  E Fantino,et al.  Relative delay of reinforcement and choice. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  D Macewen,et al.  The effects of terminal-link fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules on responding under concurrent chained schedules. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  CHOICE FOR PERIODIC SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT1 , 1970 .

[17]  D. Stubbs,et al.  Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  E. Fantino Choice and rate of reinforcement. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  M. Davison,et al.  Reinforcement rate and immediacy of reinforcement as factors in choice , 1968 .

[20]  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.

[21]  M. L. Chambers,et al.  Nonparametric Trend Analysis , 1967 .

[22]  J. E. Mazur An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. , 1987 .

[23]  M. Marr,et al.  Choice and reinforcement delay. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  E. Fantino,et al.  Effects on choice of reinforcement delay and conditioned reinforcement. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  Recent Developments In Choice , 1974, Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

[26]  N Squires,et al.  A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  E. Fantino,et al.  Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement. , 1970, Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

[28]  R. Gnanadesikan,et al.  Nonparametric Trend Analysis. A Practical Guide for Research Workers , 1965 .