Matching and maximizing with variable-time schedules.

Pigeons were offered choices between a variable-time schedule that arranged reinforcers throughout the session and a variable-time schedule that arranged reinforcers only when the pigeon was spending time on it. The subjects could maximize the overall rate of reinforcement in this situation by biasing their time allocation towards the latter schedule. This arrangement provides an alternative to concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedules for testing whether animals maximize overall rates or match relative rates, and has the advantage of being free of the asymmetrical response requirements present with those schedules. The results were contrary to those predicted by maximizing: The bias it predicts did not appear.

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

[2]  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.

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

[4]  R. Shull,et al.  Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures. , 1967, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  A. Brownstein,et al.  Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  C. Shimp.  Optimal behavior in free-operant experiments. , 1969 .

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

[8]  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.

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

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

[11]  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.

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

[13]  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.

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

[15]  R. Luce,et al.  Operant matching is not a logical consequence of maximizing reinforcement rate , 1979 .

[16]  J. Kagel,et al.  Substitutability in time allocation. , 1980 .

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

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

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

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

[21]  H Rachlin,et al.  Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[22]  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.