Four women pressed a button in five two-component concurrent variable-ratio variable-ratio (conc VR VR) schedules of monetary reinforcement. There was no consistent tendency towards “probability matching” (distribution of responses between the two components in proportion to the relative probabilities of reinforcement); three of the four subjects showed exclusive preference for the schedule associated with the higher probability of reinforcement. These results are similar to results previously obtained with pigeons and rats in concurrent VR VR schedules.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BittermanM. E.Phyletic differences in learning. American Psychologist, 1965, 20, 396–410.
2.
BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.Quantitative analysis of human operant behavior. In DaveyG.CullenC. (Eds.), Human operant conditioning and behavior modification. Chichester, Eng.: Wiley, 1988.
3.
BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.BevanP.Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 135–141.
GreenL.RachlinH.HansonJ.Matching and maximizing with concurrent ratio-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 217–224.
6.
HerrnsteinR. J.On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970, 13, 243–266.
7.
HerrnsteinR. J.LovelandD. H.Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975, 24, 107–116.
8.
HerrnsteinR. J.VaughanW.Melioration and behavioral allocation. In StaddonJ. E. R. (Ed.), Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
9.
MacDonallJ. S.Concurrent variable-ratio schedules: Implications for the generalized matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1988, 50, 55–64.
10.
MackintoshN. J.The psychology of animal learning. London: Academic Press, 1974.
