Ten pigeons responded in a two-alternative continuous-choice situation. Rein-forcers were programmed by a single variable-interval 30-sec schedule. The proportion of reinforcers assigned to one alternative was either 0.67 or 0.50 in different conditions. The changes in local changeover rates following changes of conditions were adequately described by an exponential function. This result can be explained by a model of changeover behaviour proposed by Myerson and Miezin (1980), if a simplifying assumption is made about reinforcement rates as controlling variables. A modification of the Myerson and Miezin model that accounts for the exponential function but does not make assumptions about reinforcement rates as controlling variables is presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoelensH.KopP. F. M.NagelA. L.SlangenJ. L. (1987). Concurrent schedules: Effects of reinforcement rate and changeover delay on time allocation in a three-alternative procedure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology39B, 229–244.
2.
BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.BevanP.RuddleH. V. (1979). The effect of signaled reinforcement availability on concurrent performances in humans.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior32, 65–74.
3.
DavisonM. C.HunterI. W. (1979). Concurrent schedules: Undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior32, 233–244.
4.
de VilliersP. A.HerrnsteinR. J. (1976). Toward a law of response strength.Psychological Bulletin83, 1131–1153.
FindleyJ. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior1, 123–144.
7.
FleshlerM.HoffmanH. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior5, 529–530.
8.
GrimmettG. R.StirzakerD. R. (1982). Probability and random processesOxford: Clarendon Press.
9.
HeymanG. M. (1979). A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior31, 41–51.
10.
HookeR.JeevesT. A. (1961). Direct search solution of numerical and statistical problems.Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery8, 212–229.
11.
HunterI. W.DavisonM. (1978). Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior29, 535–556.
12.
HunterI.DavisonM. (1985). Determination of a behavioral transfer function: White-noise analysis of session-to-session response-ratio dynamics on concurrent VI VI schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior43, 43–59.
13.
KilleenP. R. (1972). A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior18, 13–22.
14.
KilleenP. R. (1981). Averaging theory.Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour.BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.LoweC. F.Amsterdam: Elsevier21–34.
15.
MarcucellaH.MargoliusG. (1978). Time allocation in concurrent schedules: The effect of signalled reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior29, 419–430.
16.
MyersonJ.MiezinF. M. (1980). The kinetics of choice: An operant systems analysis.Psychological Review87, 160–174.
17.
PliskoffS. S. (1971). Effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical changeover delays on concurrent performances.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior16, 249–256.
18.
ShullR. L.PliskoffS. S. (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: Some effects on relative performance measures.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior10, 517–527.
19.
SilberbergA.FantinoE. (1970). Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior13, 187–197.
20.
SnapperA. G.StephensK. R.LeeD. M. (1974). The SKED software systemKalamazoo, MI.: State Systems.
21.
StubbsD. A.PliskoffS. S. (1969). Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior12, 887–895.
22.
TodorovJ. C. (1971). Concurrent performances: Effect of punishment contingent on the switching response.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior16, 51–62.
23.
TodorovJ. C.Oliveira CastroJ. M.HannaE. S.Bittencourt de SaM. C. N.BarretoM. Q. (1983). Choice, experience, and the generalized matching law.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior40, 99–112.
24.
TustinR. D.DavisonM. (1979). Choice: Effects of changeover schedules on concurrent performance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior32, 75–91.
25.
Van HaarenF. (1981). The effects of changeover delays of fixed or variable duration on concurrent variable-interval performance in pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior9, 425–431.
26.
VaughanW.Jr. (1982). Choice and the Rescorla—Wagner model.Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Vol. 2. Matching and Maximizing Accounts.CommonsM. L.HerrnsteinR. J.RachlinH.Cambridge, MA.: Ballinger263–279.
27.
WilkieD. M. (1973). Signalled reinforcement in multiple and concurrent schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior20, 29–36.
