Premium
CHOICE BETWEEN RESPONSE UNITS: THE RATE CONSTANCY MODEL
Author(s) -
Zeiler Michael D.,
Blakely Thomas F.
Publication year - 1983
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-275
Subject(s) - reinforcement , matching law , pecking order , schedule , stimulus (psychology) , time allocation , statistics , operant conditioning , computer science , matching (statistics) , mathematics , psychology , social psychology , cognitive psychology , social science , evolutionary biology , sociology , biology , operating system
In a conjoint schedule, reinforcement is available simultaneously on two or more schedules for the same response. The present experiments provided food for key pecking on both a random‐interval and a differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate (DRL) schedule. Experiment 1 involved ordinary DRL schedules; Experiment 2 added an external stimulus to indicate when the required interresponse time had elapsed. In both experiments, the potential reinforcer frequency from each component was varied by means of a second‐order fixed‐ratio schedule, and the DRL time parameter was changed as well. Response rates were described by a model stating that time allocation to each component matches the relative frequency of reinforcement for that component. When spending time in a given component, the subject is assumed to respond at the rate characteristic of baseline performance. This model appeared preferable to the absolute‐rate version of the matching law. The model was shown to be applicable to multiple‐response concurrent schedules as well as to conjoint schedules, and it described some of the necessary conditions for response matching, undermatching, and bias. In addition, the pigeons did not optimize reinforcer frequency.