Literature DB >> 19230514

The probability of small schedule values and preference for random-interval schedules.

Michelle Ennis Soreth1, Philip N Hineline.   

Abstract

Preference for working on variable schedules and temporal discrimination were simultaneously examined in two experiments using a discrete-trial, concurrent-chains arrangement with fixed interval (FI) and random interval (RI) terminal links. The random schedule was generated by first sampling a probability distribution after the programmed delay to reinforcement on the FI schedule had elapsed, and thus the RI never produced a component schedule value shorter than the FI and maintained a rate of reinforcement half that of the FI. Despite these features, the FI was not strongly preferred. The probability of obtaining the smallest programmed delay to reinforcement on the RI schedule was manipulated in Experiment 1, and the interaction of this probability and initial link length was examined in Experiment 2. As the probability of obtaining small values in the RI increased, preference for the schedule increased while the discriminated time of reinforcer availability in the terminal link decreased. Both of these effects were attenuated by lengthening the initial links. The results support the view that in addition to the delay to reinforcement, the probability of obtaining a short delay is an important choice-affecting variable that likely contributes to the robust preferences for variable, as opposed to fixed, schedules of reinforcement.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19230514      PMCID: PMC2614820          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2009.91-89

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


  23 in total

1.  On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching.

Authors:  W M Baum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-07       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Choice and the relative immediacy of reinforcement.

Authors:  R Dunn; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Preference for fixed-interval schedules: effects of initial-link length.

Authors:  G R Wardlaw; M C Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-03       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 4.  The effect of conditioned reinforcement rate on choice: a review.

Authors:  Edmund Fantino; Paul Romanowich
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Rapid acquisition of preference in concurrent chains when alternatives differ on multiple dimensions of reinforcement.

Authors:  Elizabeth G E Kyonka; Randolph C Grace
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  The matching law and effects of reinforcer rate and magnitude on choice in transition.

Authors:  Elizabeth G E Kyonka
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 1.777

7.  Constant versus variable delay of reinforcement.

Authors:  B H PUBOLS
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1962-02

8.  Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards.

Authors:  J Gibbon; R M Church; S Fairhurst; A Kacelnik
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference.

Authors:  P Killeen
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1968-05       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Isolation of an internal clock.

Authors:  S Roberts
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  1981-07
View more
  2 in total

1.  Random-ratio schedules produce greater demand for i.v. drug administration than fixed-ratio schedules in rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  Carla H Lagorio; Gail Winger
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2014-02-23       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Choice between variable and fixed cocaine injections in male rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  S L Huskinson; K B Freeman; N M Petry; J K Rowlett
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2017-06-10       Impact factor: 4.530

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.