Choice in transition: A comparison of melioration and the kinetic model.

Transition-state choice behavior of pigeons was examined in two experiments designed to test predictions of melioration and the kinetic model. Both experiments began with an initial training condition during which subjects were maintained on concurrent variable-interval schedules. In Experiment 1, subjects were then exposed to concurrent variable-ratio schedules, whereas in Experiment 2, subjects were then exposed to concurrent extinction. Contrary to the predictions of melioration, but consistent with the kinetic model, acquisition of preference on concurrent variable-ratio schedules followed a negatively accelerated logistic trajectory, and preference remained stable in concurrent extinction. Predictions made by the kinetic model concerning rates of switching between alternatives were also supported.

[1]  J. Myerson,et al.  The kinetics of choice: An operant systems analysis. , 1980 .

[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. Vaughan,et al.  Optimization versus response-strength accounts of behavior. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[5]  W. Vaughan Choice: A local analysis. , 1985, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[7]  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.

[8]  J E Staddon,et al.  On Herrnstein's equation and related forms. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  J D Findley,et al.  Preference and Switching under Concurrent Scheduling. , 1958, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[11]  R. R. Bush,et al.  A Mathematical Model for Simple Learning , 1951 .

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

[13]  Joel Myerson,et al.  Top-down design for a system to control operant choice experiments , 1982 .

[14]  W Vaughan,et al.  Melioration, matching, and maximization. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  W. Newby Choice in Concurrent Schedules with a Fixed-Duration Alternative , 1980 .

[16]  J. Nevin Interval reinforcement of choice behavior in discrete trials. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[19]  F. Mcsweeney,et al.  Local rates of responding and reinforcement during concurrent schedules. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[21]  A. Catania,et al.  Concurrent performances: inhibition of one response by reinforcement of another. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[22]  Melloration and maximization of reinforcement minus costs of behavior. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[23]  P Killeen,et al.  A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.