Premium
RESIDENCE TIME AND CHOICE IN CONCURRENT FORAGING SCHEDULES
Author(s) -
Jones B. Maxwell,
Davison Michael
Publication year - 1996
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.1996.65-423
Subject(s) - reinforcement , changeover , statistics , schedule , time allocation , scheduling (production processes) , foraging , psychology , mathematics , social psychology , computer science , mathematical optimization , telecommunications , economics , ecology , transmission (telecommunications) , biology , operating system , management
Five pigeons were trained on a concurrent‐schedule analogue of the “some patches are empty” procedure. Two concurrently available alternatives were arranged on a single response key and were signaled by red and green keylights. A subject could travel between these alternatives by responding on a second yellow “switching” key. Following a changeover to a patch, there was a probability ( p ) that a single reinforcer would be available on that alternative for a response after a time determined by the value of λ, a probability of reinforcement per second. The overall scheduling of reinforcers on the two alternatives was arranged nonindependently, and the available alternative was switched after each reinforcer. In Part 1 of the experiment, the probabilities of reinforcement, p red and p green , were equal on the two alternatives, and the arranged arrival rates of reinforcers, λ red and λ green , were varied across conditions. In Part 2, the reinforcer arrival times were arranged to be equal, and the reinforcer probabilities were varied across conditions. In Part 3, both parameters were varied. The results replicated those seen in studies that have investigated time allocation in a single patch: Both response and time allocation to an alternative increased with decreasing values of λ and with increasing values of p , and residence times were consistently greater than those that would maximize obtained reinforcer rates. Furthermore, both response‐ and time‐allocation ratios undermatched mean reinforcer‐arrival time and reinforcer‐frequency ratios.