Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement.

During Phase I, human subjects pressed a button for monetary reinforcement in five variable-interval schedules, each of which specified a different frequency of reinforcement. The rate of responding was an increasing, negatively accelerated function of reinforcement frequency; the data conformed closely to Herrnstein's equation. During Phase II, the same five schedules were in operation, but in addition a concurrent variable-interval schedule (B) was introduced, responses on which were always reinforced at the same frequency. Response rate in component A increased while the response rate in B decreased, as a function of the reinforcement frequency in component A. Relative response rates in the two component schedules matched the relative frequencies of reinforcement. Comparing the absolute response rates in component A during Phase I and Phase II it was found that introduction of the concurrent schedule did not affect the value of the theoretical maximum response rate, but did increase the value of the reinforcement frequency needed to obtain any particular submaximal response rate.

[1]  D. Lewis,et al.  Quantitative methods in psychology , 1950 .

[2]  G. N. Wilkinson Statistical estimations in enzyme kinetics. , 1961, The Biochemical journal.

[3]  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.

[4]  C. A. Boneau,et al.  Work decrement and reminiscence in pigeon operant responding. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  S. Pliskoff RATE-CHANGE EFFECTS WITH EQUAL POTENTIAL REINFORCEMENTS DURING THE "WARNING" STIMULUS. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[8]  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.

[9]  S. Schroeder,et al.  REINFORCEMENT OF EYE MOVEMENT WITH CONCURRENT SCHEDULES1 , 1969 .

[10]  R. Wilton,et al.  Behavioral contrast in one component of a multiple schedule as a function of the reinforcement conditions operating in the following component. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[13]  K L Wheatley,et al.  Matching to relative reinforcement frequency in multiple schedules with a short component duration. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  J C Todorov,et al.  Component duration and relative response rates in multiple schedules. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  A. Catania,et al.  Self-inhibiting effects of reinforcement. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  D R Schmitt Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[18]  R. Conger,et al.  Use of Concurrent Operants in Small Group Research , 1974 .

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

[20]  Human Variable—Interval Performance , 1976, Psychological reports.