Optimization versus response-strength accounts of behavior.

Pigeons were run in both single-key and concurrent-key experiments in which, over most of the range of response rates, an increase in response rate gave rise to a continuous decrease in reinforcement rate. In spite of the fact that a low response rate would have produced a high reinforcement rate, all birds responded at relatively high rates, thus keeping reinforcement rates substantially below the maximum possible. In the concurrent-key experiment, in addition to responding at relatively high rates, the birds' ratios of responses approximately matched the corresponding ratios of obtained reinforcers. The results are inconsistent with most theories of optimal performance, which assume that organisms behave in ways that either maximize reinforcement value or minimize deviations from a free-behavior point. On the other hand, the results are consistent with the assumption that reinforcement strengthens the tendency to respond.

[1]  H. Rachlin A molar theory of reinforcement schedules. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  W M Baum,et al.  Optimization and the matching law as accounts of instrumental behavior. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  W M Baum,et al.  The correlation-based law of effect. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  R. Eisenberger,et al.  What is the necessary and sufficient condition for reinforcement in the contingency situation? , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  D. Premack Toward empirical behavior laws. I. positive reinforcement. , 1959, Psychological review.

[6]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  CHAPTER 5 – Melioration and Behavioral Allocation1 , 1980 .

[8]  D. Prelec The empirical claims of maximization theory: A reply to Rachlin and to Kagel, Battalio, and Green. , 1983 .

[9]  J. Staddon Operant behavior as adaptation to constraint. , 1979 .

[10]  Stephen José Hanson,et al.  Regulation during challenge: A general model of learned performance under schedule constraint. , 1983 .

[11]  Jer Staddon,et al.  Optimization: a result or a mechanism? , 1983 .

[12]  J. Staddon,et al.  On matching and maximizing in operant choice experiments. , 1978 .

[13]  J. Kagel,et al.  Maximization theory in behavioral psychology , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[14]  W. Timberlake,et al.  Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance , 1974 .

[15]  H S HOFFMAN,et al.  A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. , 1962, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  R. Herrnstein On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  J. E. Mazur Optimization theory fails to predict performance of pigeons in a two-response situation. , 1981, Science.

[18]  A Silberberg,et al.  Concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules can provide only weak evidence for matching. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  G M Heyman,et al.  Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable interval variable ratio? , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.