» Articles » PMID: 16811849

Choice and Response Contingencies

Overview
Date 1975 May 1
PMID 16811849
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Two experiments investigated the extent to which response contingencies influence the choice between two schedules of reinforcement by exposing pigeons to a concurrent-chains procedure in which reinforcers in one terminal link were response-independent, and in the other terminal link, response-dependent. In Experiment 1, the pigeons were indifferent between an aperiodic, response-independent schedule and an aperiodic, response-dependent schedule that required a minimum rate of responding. This finding limits the generality of a required-rate contingency as a determinant of choice, which contingency had been previously demonstrated in a context of periodic reinforcement to evoke preference for an alternate schedule. In Experiment 2, the pigeons preferred a periodic, response-independent schedule to a periodic, response-dependent schedule that shared a feature with a required-rate schedule: there was a requirement to respond early in the interreinforcement interval, when responding produced reinforcement only later. The results of the two experiments suggest the following general interpretation: pigeons prefer a second schedule to the extent that the response contingencies of the first schedule must be satisfied during discriminable periods of nonreinforcement.

Citing Articles

To peck or not peck: Which do pigeons prefer?.

Andrews D, Zentall T Learn Behav. 2018; 47(3):217-226.

PMID: 30421124 DOI: 10.3758/s13420-018-0365-7.


Temporal context, preference, and resistance to change.

Podlesnik C, Jimenez-Gomez C, Thrailkill E, Shahan T J Exp Anal Behav. 2011; 96(2):191-213.

PMID: 21909164 PMC: 3168887. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2011.96-191.


Choice, conditioned reinforcement, and the prius effect.

Fantino E Behav Anal. 2010; 31(2):95-111.

PMID: 20305735 PMC: 2841406. DOI: 10.1007/BF03392164.


Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay.

Alessandri J, Darcheville J, Delevoye-Turrell Y, Zentall T Learn Behav. 2008; 36(4):352-8.

PMID: 18927058 DOI: 10.3758/LB.36.4.352.


Choice, changeover, and travel: A quantitative model.

Davison M J Exp Anal Behav. 1991; 55(1):47-61.

PMID: 16812630 PMC: 1322977. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-47.


References
1.
Shull R . A response-initiated fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970; 13(1):13-5. PMC: 1333651. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-13. View

2.
Duncan B, Fantino E . The psychological distance to reward. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972; 18(1):23-34. PMC: 1333981. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-23. View

3.
Schneider J . Choice between two-component chained and tandem schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972; 18(1):45-60. PMC: 1333983. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-45. View

4.
Herrnstein R . SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964; 7:27-36. PMC: 1404366. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-27. View

5.
Catania A, Reynolds G . A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968; 11(3):Suppl:327-83. PMC: 1338497. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. View