Abstract
Pigeons responded to changeover-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval reinforcement schedules while there were intervals during which the changeover key was inoperative (no-choice intervals). In Experiment 1, a multiple schedule on the changeover key signaled choice and no-choice intervals. All subjects showed near-perfect discrimination during initial discrimination training and rapid reacquisition of discrimination following contingency reversals. In Experiment 2, the onset of no-choice intervals was unsignaled and contingent on interchangeover time. The temporal distribution of changeover-key responses conformed to the temporal distribution of choice intervals. The results of both experiments suggest that changeover responding is modifiable as a function of its immediate consequences. The results of Experiment 2, in particular, suggest that time or some correlate of time since the last changeover response can determine subsequent changeover behavior.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baum, W. M. The correlation-based law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1973,20, 137–153.
de Villiers, P. A. Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.),Handbook of operant behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Fetterman, J. G., &Stubbs, D. A. Matching, maximizing and the behavioral unit: Concurrent reinforcement of response sequences.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1982,37, 97–114.
Fleshler, M., &Hoffman, H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962,5, 529–530.
Hale, J. M., &Shimp, C. P. Molecular contingencies: Reinforcement probability.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975,24, 315–321.
Herrick, R. M., Meyer, J. L., &Korotkin, A. L. Changes in Sd and SΔ rates during the development of an operant discrimination.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1959,52, 359–363.
Herrnstein, R. J. On the law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970,13, 243–266.
Herrnstein, R. J., &Heyman, G. M. Is matching compatible with reinforcement maximization on concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio?Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1979,31, 209–223.
Herrnstein, R. J., &Loveland, D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975,24, 107–116.
Heyman, G. M. Markov model description of changeover probabilities on concurrent variable-interval schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1979,31, 41–51.
Heyman, G. M., &Luce, R. D. Operant matching is not a logical consequence of maximizing reinforcement.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1979,7, 133–140.
Menlove, R. L. Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1975,23, 309–337.
Nevin, J. A. Overall matching versus momentary maximizing: Nevin (1969) revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1979,5, 300–306.
Pliskoff, S. S. Effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical changeover delays on concurrent performances.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1971,16, 249–256.
Pliskoff, S. S., &Green, D. Effects on concurrent performances of a stimulus correlated with reinforcer availability.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972,17, 221–227.
Rachlin, H. A molar theory of reinforcement schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1978,30, 345–360.
Shimp, C. P. Optimal behavior in free-operant experiments.Psychological Review, 1969,76, 97–112.
Shimp, C. P. Perspectives on the behavioral unit: Choice behavior in animals. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1975.
Shimp, C. P. Reinforcement and the local organization of behavior. In R. J. Herrnstein & M. Commons (Eds.),Quantitative analyses of operant behavior (Vol. 2):Matching and maximizing accounts. New York: Ballinger, 1982.
Silberbero, A., &Fantino, E. Choice rate of reinforcement and changeover delay.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970,13, 187–197.
Silberbero, A., Hamilton, B., Ziriax, J. M., &Casey, J. The structure of choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1978,4, 368–398.
Stubbs, D. A. Temporal discrimination and a free-operant psychological procedure.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1980,33, 167–185.
Stubbs, D. A., Pliskoff, S. S., &Reid, H. M. Concurrent schedules: A quantitative relation between changeover behavior and its consequences.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1977,27, 85–96.
Todorov, J. C. Concurrent performances: Effect of punishment contingent on the switching response.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1971,16, 51–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Real, P.G., Hobson, S.L. Noncontingent and contingent no-choice intervals and concurrent performance. Animal Learning & Behavior 11, 44–50 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212305
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212305