Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules.

The generalized matching law states that the logarithm of the ratio of responses emitted or time spent responding in concurrent variable-interval schedules is a linear function of the logarithm of the ratio of reinforcements obtained. The slope of this relation, sensitivity to reinforcement, varies about 1.0 but has been shown to be different when obtained in different laboratories. The present paper analyzed the results from 18 experiments on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance and showed that response-allocation sensitivity to reinforcement was significantly smaller when arithmetic, rather than exponential, progressions were used to produce variable-interval schedules. There were no differences in time-allocation sensitivity between the two methods of constructing variable-interval schedules. Since the two laboratories have consistently used different methods for constructing variable-interval schedules, the differences in obtained sensitivities to reinforcement are explained. The reanalysis suggests that animals may be sensitive to differences in the distribution of reinforcements in time.

[1]  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.

[2]  M Davison,et al.  Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[4]  M C Davison,et al.  Performance in concurrent interval schedules. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  F K McSweeney Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press schedules. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[7]  I W Hunter,et al.  Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  G M Heyman,et al.  A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  S S Pliskoff,et al.  Undermatching and overmatching: The fixed-ratio changeover requirement. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  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.

[12]  D L Myers,et al.  Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  C. Bradshaw,et al.  Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  W. Baum,et al.  Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  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.

[16]  F. Mcsweeney,et al.  Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[18]  S S Pliskoff,et al.  Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  E Mullins,et al.  On the analysis of studies of choice. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[20]  H. L. Miller Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[23]  W. Temple,et al.  Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  W. Baum,et al.  Time-based and count-based measurement of preference. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[26]  W M Baum,et al.  Time allocation in human vigilance. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  R J Herrnstein,et al.  Formal properties of the matching law. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[28]  E. Fantino,et al.  Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[29]  M C Davison,et al.  Distribution of response ratios in concurrent variable-interval performance. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[30]  I W Hunter,et al.  Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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