Abstract
Three experiments explored responses to molar and local schedule constraints. Thirsty rats pressed a lever for access to a water spout. In Experiment 1, response totals were unaffected by two local schedule characteristics—the variability of the instrumental requirement and the variability of the magnitude of contingent reward. Experiment 2 manipulated the correlation between the instrumental requirement and the magnitude of reward. This correlation did not affect the behavioral price ratio (presses per lick) at a molar level. At a local level, the positive correlation created a lower mean lick price than did the negative correlation. The rats licked more, and licked less efficiently, under the positive correlation than under the negative correlation. Experiment 3 compared two ways of manipulating the molar presses/lick ratio: The instrumental (contingent) series varied the instrumental (contingent) requirement, but held the other requirement constant. As the ratio increased, total leverpresses increased, and total licks decreased linearly; the two series did not differ significantly. At higher lick prices, the rats licked more efficiently and made more extra licks at the spout as it closed. The results help delimit the applicability of molar models of the organism’s response to schedule constraints.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allison, J. (1976). Contrast, induction, facilitation, suppression, and conservation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,25, 185–198.
Allison, J. (1983).Behavioral economics. New York: Praeger.
Allison, J., &Boulter, P. (1982). Wage rate, nonlabor income, and labor supply in rats.Learning & Motivation,13, 324–342.
Allison, J., Miller, M., &Wozny, M. (1979). Conservation in behavior.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 4–34.
Allison, J., &Moore, K. E. (1985). Lick-trading by rats: On the substitutability of dry, water, and saccharin tubes.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,43, 195–213.
Allison, J., &Timberlake, W. (1974). Instrumental and contingent saccharin licking in rats: Response deprivation and reinforcement.Learning & Motivation,5, 231–247.
Cabanac, M. (1986). Money versus pain: Experimental study of a conflict in humans.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,46, 37–44.
Collier, G. H., Johnson, D. F., Hill, W. L., &Kaufman, L. W. (1986). The economics of the law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,46, 113–136.
Ferster, C. B., &Skinner, B. F. (1957).Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gleitman, H. (1983).Basic psychology. New York: Norton.
Hursh, S. R. (1986, June). Factors defining open and closed economies: Mapping the continuum. In M. L. Commons (Chair),Ninth Harvard symposium on quantitative analyses of behavior. Cambridge, MA.
Kelsey, J. E., &Aluson, J. (1976). Fixed-ratio lever pressing by VMH rats: Work vs. accessibility of sucrose reward.Physiology & Behavior,17, 749–754.
Staddon, J. E. R. (1979). Operant behavior as adaptation to constraint.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 49–67.
Teitelbaum, P. (1957). Random and food-directed activity in hyperphagic and normal rats.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,50, 486–490.
Timberlake, W., &Aluson, J. (1974). Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance.Psychological Review,81, 146–164.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Allison, J., Buxton, A. & Moore, K.E. Rats’ responses to molar and local schedule constraints. Animal Learning & Behavior 15, 360–367 (1987). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205041
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205041