Literature DB >> 16812318

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay.

D P Rider.   

Abstract

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement was studied with a concurrent-chain procedure. Lever pressing by rats in concurrently available variable-interval 60-second initial links occasionally produced mutually exclusive terminal-link reinforcement delays. A constant delay of reinforcement (either 15 seconds or 30 seconds) composed one terminal link and mixed delays (.2 second and twice the value of the constant delay) were arranged in the other terminal link. The proportion of .2-second delays in the mixed-delay terminal link took on values of 0, .1, .25, .5, .75, .9, and 1.0 over experimental conditions. Based on relative rates of responding in the initial links, preference for the mixed delays was a negatively accelerated function of the proportion of short, mixed delays. Three of five rats preferred the mixed delays to the constant delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .1 or higher, and all five rats preferred the mixed delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .25 or higher. Neither Squires and Fantino's (1971) delay-reduction model of choice nor a model based on the harmonic mean reinforcement delay provided a close estimate of choice proportions over the range of short-delay proportions studied. The delay-reduction model underestimated choice for the mixed delays at low and intermediate proportions of short delays, and the harmonic-mean-delay model overestimated choice for the mixed delays at intermediate and high proportions of short delays.

Entities:  

Year:  1983        PMID: 16812318      PMCID: PMC1347919          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  17 in total

1.  Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules: number of component intervals.

Authors:  M C Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  The effects of terminal-link fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules on responding under concurrent chained schedules.

Authors:  D Macewen
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-09       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  The psychological distance to reward.

Authors:  B Duncan; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-07       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Choice for periodic schedules of reinforcement.

Authors:  B Duncan; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1970-07       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Choice and rate of reinforcement.

Authors:  E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-09       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules.

Authors:  E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1967-01       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules.

Authors:  M C Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-03       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Some factors controlling preference between fixed-ratio and variable-ratio schedules of reinforcement.

Authors:  J A Sherman; J R Thomas
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1968-11       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules.

Authors:  N Squires; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1971-01       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement.

Authors:  A C Catania; G S Reynolds
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1968-05       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  20 in total

1.  Evidence against a constant-difference effect in concurrent-chains schedules.

Authors:  James E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  The effect of rate of reinforcement and time in session on preference for variability.

Authors:  Frances K McSweeney; Benjamin P Kowal; Eric S Murphy
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers.

Authors:  J E Mazur; A Romano
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Escalation research: providing new frontiers for applying behavior analysis to organizational behavior.

Authors:  S M Goltz
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2000

5.  The effect of variable delays on self-control.

Authors:  J J Chelonis; G King; A W Logue; H Tobin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Choice and transformed interreinforcement intervals.

Authors:  J Moore
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Choice between single and multiple reinforcers in concurrent-chains schedules.

Authors:  James E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Choice between delayed reinforcers and fixed-ratio schedules requiring forceful responding.

Authors:  J E Mazur; J D Kralik
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Choice for aperiodic versus periodic ratio schedules: A comparison of concurrent and concurrent-chain procedures.

Authors:  D P Rider
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of prereinforcer and postreinforcer stimuli.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.