The Psychological Record

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 437–445 | Cite as

Quantitative Analyses of Choice in Rat and Pigeon

  • John K. Robinson
Article

Abstract

Studies of choice in nonhuman animals that presented concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement were quantitatively reviewed. Empirical parameters representing bias and sensitivity in the generalized matching equation were calculated across studies and compared. Undermatching was the most common relationship observed. No consistent bias was shown. An analysis of moderating variables also revealed that the laboratory in which an experiment was conducted, and the year of publication were related to the sensitivity parameter. This reanalysis confirms that a proportional relationship between the ratios of response rates and ratios of reinforcement rates is not an accurate description of concurrent VI VI performance.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BAUM, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BAUM, W. M. (1979). Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BAUM, W. M. (1982). Choice, changeover, and travel. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. COOPER, H. M. (1989). Integrating research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. FINDLEY, J. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 123–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. HERRNSTEIN, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ROSENTHAL, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. STADDON, J. E. R. (1968). Spaced responding and choice: A preliminary analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 669–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. TAYLOR, R., & DAVISON, M. (1983). Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. WEARDEN, J. H., & BURGESS, I. S. (1982). Matching since Baum (1979). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Appendix Studies Included in Analysis

  1. Baum, W. M. (1972). Choice in a continuous procedure. Psychonomic Science, 28, 263–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, W. M. (1973). Time allocation and negative reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20, 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, W. M. (1974b). Choice in free-ranging wild pigeons. Science, 185, 78–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, W. M. (1976). Time-based and count-based measures of preference. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, W. M., & Rachlin, H. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 861–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauman, R. A., Shull, R. R., & Brownstein, A. J. (1975). Time allocation on concurrent schedules with asymmetrical response requirements. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beautrais, P. G., & Davison, M. C. (1977). Response and time allocation in concurrent second order schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brownstein, A. J., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1968). Some effects of relative reinforcement rate and changeover delay in response-independent concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11, 683–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Catania, A. C. (1963). Concurrent performances: Reinforcement interaction and response independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davison, M., & Ferguson, A. (1978). The effects of different component response requirements in multiple and concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davison, M. C, & Hunter, I. W. (1976). Performance on variable-interval schedules arranged singly and concurrently. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fantino, E., Squires, N., Delbrück, N., & Peterson, C. (1972). Choice behavior and the accessibility of the reinforcer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graft, D. A., Lea, S. E. G., & Whitworth, T. L. (1977). The matching law in and within groups of rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heyman, G. M. (1979). A Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31,41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hollard, V., & Davison, M. C. (1971). Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunter, I. W., & Davison, M. C. (1978). Response rate and changeover performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutton, L., Gardner, E. T., & Lewis, P. (1978). Matching with a key-peck response in concurrent negative reinforcement schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leigland, S. M. (1979). Deviations from matching as a measure of preference for alternatives in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lobb, B., & Davison, M. C. (1975). Performance on concurrent interval schedules: A systematic replication. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lobb, B., & Davison, M. C. (1977). Multiple and concurrent schedules performance: Independence from concurrent and successive schedule contexts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 28, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Logue, A. W., & de Villiers, P. A. (1978). Matching in concurrent variable-interval avoidance schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29,61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McSweeney, F. K. (1975). Matching and contrast on several concurrent treadle-press schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menlove, R. L. (1975). Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, H. L., Jr. (1976). Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norman, W. D., & McSweeney, F. K. (1978). Matching, contrast, and equalizing in the concurrent lever-press responding of rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poling, A. (1978). Performance of rats under concurrent variable-interval schedules of negative reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pliskoff, S. S., & Brown, T. G. (1976). Matching with a trio of concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodewald, H. K. (1978). Concurrent random-interval schedules and the matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silberberg, A., & Fantino, E. (1970). Choice, rate of reinforcement, and the changeover delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stubbs, D. A., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1969). Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12,887–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trevett, A. J., Davison, M. C., & Williams, R. J. (1972). Performance on concurrent interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17,369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tustin, R. D., & Davison, M. C. (1978). Distribution of response ratios in concurrent variable-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 561–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wheatley, K. L., & Engberg, L. A. (1978). Choice performance in several key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • John K. Robinson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New HampshireUSA

Personalised recommendations