Abstract
Pigeons were trained on a multiple schedule in which separate concurrent schedules were presented in the two components of the schedule. During one component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variableinterval 80-sec schedules operated. In the second component, concurrent variable-interval 40-sec variableinterval 20-sec schedules operated. After stable baseline performance was obtained in both components, extinction probe choice tests were presented to assess preference between the variable-interval 40-sec schedules from the two components. The variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variableinterval 80-sec schedule was preferred over the variable-interval 40-sec schedule paired with the variableinterval 20-sec schedule. The subjects were also exposed to several resistance-to-change manipulations: (1) prefeeding prior to the experimental session, (2) a free-food schedule added to timeout periods separating components, and (3) extinction. The results indicated that preference and resistance to change do not necessarily covary.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Belke, T. W. (1992). Stimulus preference and the transitivity of preference.Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 401–406.
Bell, M. C. (1999). Pavlovian contingencies and resistance to change in a multiple schedule.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,72, 81–96.
Fleshler, M., &Hoffman, H. S. (1962). A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,5, 529–530.
Gibbon, J. (1995). Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 208–215.
Grace, R. C., &Savastano, H. I. (1997). Transfer tests of stimulus value in concurrent chains.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,68, 93–115.
Grace, R. C., &Savastano, H. I. (2000). Temporal context and conditioned reinforcement value.Journal of the Experimental Psychology: General,129, 427–443.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,13, 243–266.
Killeen, P. (1972). A yoked-chamber comparison of concurrent and multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,18, 13–22.
Mark, T. A., &Gallistel, C. R. (1994). The kinetics of matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,20, 79–95.
McLean, A. P., Campbell-Tie, P., &Nevin, J. A. (1996). Resistance to change as a function of stimulus-reinforcer and location-reinforcer contingencies.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,66, 169–192.
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.
Nevin, J. A. (1974). Response strength in multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,21, 389–408.
Nevin, J. A. (1979). Reinforcement schedules and response strength. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.),Reinforcement and the organization of behavior (pp. 117–158). New York: Wiley.
Nevin, J. A. (1992). An integrative model for the study of behavioral momentum.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,57, 301–316.
Nevin, J. A., &Grace, R. C. (2000). Behavioral momentum and the law of effect.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 73–130.
Nevin, J. A., Smith, L. D., &Roberts, J. (1987). Does contingent reinforcement strengthen operant behavior?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,48, 17–33.
Nevin, J. A., Tota, M. E., Torquato, R. D., &Shull, R. L. (1990). Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,53, 359–379.
Rachlin, H., &Baum, W. M. (1972). Effects of alternative reinforcement: Does the source matter?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,18, 231–241.
Skinner, B. F. (1938).The behavior of organisms. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary?Psychological Review,57, 193–216.
Vom Saal, W. (1972). Choice between stimuli previously presented separately.Learning & Motivation,3, 209–222.
Williams, B. A. (1988). Reinforcement, choice, and response strength. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey,& R. D. Luce (Eds.),Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 2. Learning and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 167–244). New York: Wiley.
Williams, B. A. (1991). Behavioral contrast and reinforcement value.Animal Learning & Behavior,19, 337–344.
Williams, B. A. (1992). Inverse relations between preference and contrast.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,58, 303–312.
Williams, B. A. (1993). Molar versus local reinforcement probability as determinants of stimulus value.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,59, 163–172.
Williams, B. A. (1994). The role of probability of reinforcement in models of choice.Psychological Review,101, 704–707.
Williams, B. A., &Bell, M. C. (1996). Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,65, 513–526.
Williams, B. A., &Bell, M. C. (1999). Preference after training with differential changeover delays.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,71, 45–55.
Williams, B. A., &Bell, M. C. (2000). The uncertain domain of resistance to change.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,23, 116–117.
Williams, B. A., &Royalty, P. (1989). A test of the melioration theory of matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,15, 99–113.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Portions of this research were presented at the 22nd annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, San Francisco, and were carried out in partial fulfillment of the PhD requirements at UCSD for the first author. This research was supported by NSF grants to the University of California, San Diego, B.A.W., principal investigator.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bell, M.C., Williams, B.A. Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules. Animal Learning & Behavior 30, 34–42 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192907
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192907