Premium
STOCK OPTIMIZING: MAXIMIZING REINFORCERS PER SESSION ON A VARIABLE‐INTERVAL SCHEDULE
Author(s) -
Silberberg Alan,
Bauman Richard,
Hursh Steven
Publication year - 1993
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.1993.59-389
Subject(s) - session (web analytics) , food delivery , zoology , schedule , psychology , reinforcement , body weight , food intake , statistics , audiology , toxicology , medicine , mathematics , computer science , social psychology , biology , endocrinology , economics , operating system , commerce , world wide web
In Experiment 1, 2 monkeys earned their daily food ration by pressing a key that delivered food according to a variable‐interval 3‐min schedule. In Phases 1 and 4, sessions ended after 3 hr. In Phases 2 and 3, sessions ended after a fixed number of responses that reduced food intake and body weights from levels during Phases 1 and 4. Monkeys responded at higher rates and emitted more responses per food delivery when the food earned in a session was reduced. In Experiment 2, monkeys earned their daily food ration by depositing tokens into the response panel. Deposits delivered food according to a variable‐interval 3‐min schedule. When the token supply was unlimited (Phases 1, 3, and 5), sessions ended after 3 hr. In Phases 2 and 4, sessions ended after 150 tokens were deposited, resulting in a decrease in food intake and body weight. Both monkeys responded at lower rates and emitted fewer responses per food delivery when the food earned in a session was reduced. Experiment 1's results are consistent with a strength account, according to which the phases that reduced body weights increased food's value and therefore increased subjects' response rates. The results of Experiment 2 are consistent with an optimizing strategy, because lowering response rates when food is restricted defends body weight on variable‐interval schedules. These contrasting results may be attributed to the discriminability of the contingency between response number and the end of a session being greater in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1. In consequence, subjects lowered their response rates in order to increase the number of reinforcers per session (stock optimizing).