Premium
COMPETITIVE FIXED‐INTERVAL PERFORMANCE IN HUMANS
Author(s) -
Buskist William,
Morgan David
Publication year - 1987
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.1987.47-145
Subject(s) - reinforcement , schedule , differential reinforcement , competition (biology) , audiology , psychology , statistics , interval (graph theory) , mathematics , medicine , social psychology , computer science , biology , ecology , combinatorics , operating system
Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed‐interval (FI) 30‐s, 60‐s, and 90‐s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break‐and‐run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate (DRL) or fixed‐ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break‐and‐run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.