Animal Learning & Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 241–248 | Cite as

Choice behavior in transition: Development of preference in a free-operant procedure

  • James E. Mazur
  • Theresa A. Ratti
Article

Abstract

Twenty acquisition curves were obtained from each of 8 pigeons in a free-operant choice procedure. Every condition began with a phase in which two response keys had equal probabilities of reinforcement, and, as a result, subjects’ responses were divided fairly evenly between the two keys. This was followed by a phase in which one key had a higher probability of reinforcement than the other, and the development of preference was observed. In all but a few cases, response proportions increased for the key with the higher probability of reinforcement. In most conditions, the two probabilities differed by .06, but the actual probabilities varied (from .16 and .10 in one condition to .07 and .01 in another). Development of preference for the key with the higher probability of reinforcement was slower when the ratio of the two reinforcement probabilities was small (.16/.10) than when it was large (.07/.01). This finding is inconsistent with the predictions of several different quantitative models of acquisition, including the kinetic model (Myerson & Miezin, 1980) and the ratio-invariance model (Horner & Staddon, 1987). However, the finding is consistent with a hypothesis based on Weber’s law, which states that the two alternatives are more discriminable when the ratio of their reinforcement probabilities is larger, and, as a result, the acquisition of preference is faster.

References

  1. Bailey, J. T., &Mazur, J. E. (1990). Choice behavior in transition: Development of preference for the higher probability of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,53, 409–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bush, R. R., &Mosteller, F. (1955).Stochastic models for learning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C. (1969). Concurrent performances: Inhibition of one response by reinforcement of another.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,12, 731–744.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fantino, E., &Royalty, P. (1987). A molecular analysis of choice on concurrent-chains schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,48, 145–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Harley, C. B. (1981). Learning the evolutionarily stable strategy.Journal of Theoretical Biology,89, 611–633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Herrnstein, R. J., &Vaughan, W. (1980). Melioration and behavioral allocation. In J. E. R. Staddon (Ed.),Limits to action: The allocation of individual behavior (pp. 143–176). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Horner, J. M., &Staddon, J. E. R. (1987). Probabilistic choice: A simple invariance.Behavioural Processes,15, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J. R., &Ens, B. (1987). Foraging in a changing environment: An experiment with starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). In M. L. Commons, A. Kacelnik, & S. J. Shettleworth (Eds.),Quan-titative analyses of behavior: Vol. 6. Foraging (pp. 63–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Killeen, P. (1972). A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,18, 13–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lester, N. (1984). The feed:feed decision: How goldfish solve the patch depletion problem.Behaviour,89, 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mazur, J. E., &Hastie, R. (1978). Learning as accumulation: A reexamination of the learning curve.Psychological Bulletin,85, 1256–1274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Menlove, R. L. (1975). Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,23, 309–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Myerson, J., &Hale, S. (1988). Choice in transition: A comparison of melioration and the kinetic model.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,49, 291–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Myerson, J., &Miezin, F. M. (1980). The kinetics of choice: An operant systems analysis.Psychological Review,87, 160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Staddon, J. E. R. (1988). Quasi-dynamic choice models: Melioration and ratio invariance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,49, 303–320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Staddon, J. E. R., &Horner, J. M. (1989). Stochastic choice models: A comparison between Bush-Mosteller and a source-independent reward-following model.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,52, 57–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Vaughan, W. (1985). Choice: A local analysis.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,43, 383–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Vaughan, W., &Herrnstein, R. J. (1987). Stability, melioration, and natural selection. In L. Green & J. H. Kagel (Eds.),Advances in behavioral economics: Vol. 1 (pp. 185–215). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • James E. Mazur
    • 1
  • Theresa A. Ratti
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentSouthern Connecticut State UniversityNew Haven

Personalised recommendations