Preference for fixed-interval schedules: effects of unequal initial links.

Six homing pigeons were trained on concurrent chain schedules in which the terminal links were fixed-interval schedules of 5 sec or 15 sec. One initial-link schedule was always VI 27-sec; the other was varied over conditions from VI 27-sec to VI 181-sec. Preference measured in the initial links varied as a joint function of the initial- and terminal-link schedules. When the initial links were varied with constant, but unequal, terminal links, the slope of the function relating the logarithm of the initial-link response ratio to the logarithm of the terminal-link entry ratio differed from that obtained with equal terminal links. This result indicates that biases attributable to the terminal-link schedules were not constant. The rate of change of preference, or degree of undermatching, in the initial links depended on whether the shorter initial link led to the shorter or the longer terminal link. These results raise the question of whether bias and undermatching in concurrent schedule performance are independent measures.

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

[2]  W Temple,et al.  Preference for fixed-interval terminal links in a three-key concurrent chain schedule. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  R. Herrnstein APERIODICITY AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  R. Herrnstein SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  M C Davison,et al.  Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  A C CATANIA,et al.  Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  M. Davison Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[9]  E Fantino,et al.  Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. , 1967, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[12]  P. Killeen On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[14]  P. Killeen Preference for fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[16]  M. Davison Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules: number of component intervals. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  J. W. Schneider Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: a comparison of concurrent performances. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  J C Todorov,et al.  Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  M C Davison,et al.  Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[20]  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.