A quantitative analysis of extreme choice.

Six homing pigeons were trained on a variety of concurrent variable-interval schedules in a switching-key procedure. Unlike previous work, reinforcer ratios of up to 160 to 1 and concurrent extinction variable-interval schedules were arranged in order to investigate choice when reinforcer-frequency outcomes were extremely different. The data obtained over 11 conditions were initially analyzed according to the generalized matching law, which fitted the data well. The generalized matching law was then fitted only to conditions in which the reinforcer ratios were between 1 to 10 and 10 to 1. The deviations of choice measures from the other four more extreme reinforcer-ratio conditions were significantly more towards equal choice than predicted by this second generalized matching fit. A contingency-discriminability model, which predicts such deviations, described the data more effectively than did the generalized matching law, and also correctly predicted the maintenance of responding on both alternatives when one was associated with extinction.

[1]  J. E. Mazur.  Choice behavior in transition: development of preference with ratio and interval schedules. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[2]  M. Davison.  Applied quantitative behavior analysis: A view from the laboratory , 1992 .

[3]  D. Mccarthy,et al.  The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  M. Davison,et al.  Effects of varying stimulus disparity and the reinforcer ratio in concurrent-schedule and signal-detection procedures. , 1991, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  M. Davison.  Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  Alexandra W. Logue,et al.  Effect on choice of absolute and relative values of reinforcer delay, amount, and frequency. , 1987 .

[7]  M. Davison,et al.  Stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and schedule performance , 1985 .

[8]  M. Davison,et al.  Concurrent variable-interval schedule performance: Fixed versus mixed reinforcer durations. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  J H Wearden,et al.  Undermatching and overmatching as deviations from the matching law. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  J. C. Todorov,et al.  Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  S. Saunders,et al.  The role of stimulus disparity in concurrently available reinforcement schedules , 1980 .

[12]  M. Davison,et al.  Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

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

[16]  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.

[17]  M. A. Trapold,et al.  Are expectancies based upon different positive reinforcing events discriminably different , 1970 .

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

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

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

[21]  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.

[22]  D. Mccarthy,et al.  Effects of the discriminability of alternatives in three-alternative concurrent-schedule performance. , 1994, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[23]  B. Alsop,et al.  Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  M. Davison,et al.  The matching law: A research review. , 1988 .

[25]  R J Herrnstein,et al.  Choosing among natural stimuli. , 1987, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[26]  J. Wearden,et al.  Superimposition of response-independent reinforcement. , 1986, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  M Davison,et al.  Determination of a behavioral transfer function: White-noise analysis of session-to-session response-ratio dynamics on concurrent VI VI schedules. , 1985, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[28]  M Davison,et al.  Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.