Concurrent Schedules: Reinforcer Magnitude Effects

Landon, Jason; Davison, Michael; Elliffe, Douglas

doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.79-351

Cited by 39 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that each food delivery shifted local preference toward the alternative from which it came, and the largest amount of food (four pellets) shifted local preference more than the smallest amount of food (one pellet). This result differed from that of Landon et al’s () showing similar effects of small and large amounts of food on local preference. To address the question of whether or not shifts in local preference depend on relative or absolute amount of food, Aparicio and Baum () compared preference shifts following large (four pellets) and small amounts (one pellet) of food with those of an earlier study in which one pellet was delivered at both alternatives (Aparicio & Baum, ).…”

contrasting

confidence: 99%

Limits to preference and the sensitivity of choice to rate and amount of food

Aparício

Baum

Hughes

et al. 2016

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of choice holding food-amount ratio constant while varying food-rate ratio within sessions showed that local changes in preference depend on relative amount of food. The present study investigated whether sensitivity of choice to food-rate ratio and sensitivity to food-amount ratio are independent of one another when food-rate ratios are varied across sessions and food-amount ratios are varied within sessions. Food deliveries for rats' presses on the left and right levers were scheduled according to three different food-rate ratios of 1:1, 9:1, and 1:9; each food-rate ratio lasted for 106 sessions and was arranged independently of seven food-amount ratios (7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, and 1:7 food pellets) occurring within sessions in random sequence. Each amount ratio lasted for 10 food deliveries and was separated from another by a 60-s blackout. Sensitivity to rate ratio was high (1.0) across food deliveries. Sensitivity to amount ratio was low when food rates were equal across alternatives, but was high when rate ratio and amount ratio opposed one another. When rate ratio and amount ratio went in the same direction, choice ratio reached an elevenfold limit which reduced sensitivity to approximately zero. We conclude that three factors affect sensitivity to amount: (1) the limit to preference, (2) the equal effect on preference of amounts greater than four pellets, and (3) the absence of differential effects of switches in amount in the equal-rates (1:1) condition. Taken together, these findings indicate that rate and amount only sometimes combine independently as additive variables to determine preference when amount ratios vary frequently within sessions.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 99%

Limits to preference and the sensitivity of choice to rate and amount of food

Aparício

Baum

Hughes

et al. 2016

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To illustrate, consider that, in matching analyses of basketball shot selection, preference has been defined in terms of the relative frequency of two‐point versus three‐point shot attempts. In laboratory matching experiments, unequal reinforcement magnitudes create bias (e.g., Landon, Davison, & Elliffe, 2003). By analogy, a three‐point shooting bias is expected in basketball, and has in fact been widely observed (e.g., Alferink et al, 2009; Hitt, Alferink, Critchfield, & Wagman, 2007; Romanowich et al, 2007; Vollmer & Bourret, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Questions also may be raised about whether behavior allocation matches the relative ratio of reinforcement magnitudes. A small body of reports indicates that for nonhumans it does (e.g., Davison & Baum, 2003; Elliffe, Davison, & Landon, 2008; Grace, 1995, 1999; Kyonka & Grace, 2008; Landon et al, 2003; Lau & Glimcher, 2005). For human subjects, the few available studies show limited matching to reinforcer magnitude (Dube & McIlvane, 2002; Sanders, 1968; Schmitt, 1974; Wurster & Griffiths, 1979).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Matching Relation and Situation‐specific Bias Modulation in Professional Football Play Selection

Stilling

Critchfield

2010

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The utility of a quantitative model depends on the extent to which its fitted parameters vary systematically with environmental events of interest. Professional football statistics were analyzed to determine whether play selection (passing versus rushing plays) could be accounted for with the generalized matching equation, and in particular whether variations in play selection across game situations would manifest as changes in the equation's fitted parameters. Statistically significant changes in bias were found for each of five types of game situations; no systematic changes in sensitivity were observed. Further analyses suggested relationships between play selection bias and both turnover probability (which can be described in terms of punishment) and yards-gained variance (which can be described in terms of variable-magnitude reinforcement schedules). The present investigation provides a useful demonstration of association between face-valid, situation-specific effects in a domain of everyday interest, and a theoretically important term of a quantitative model of behavior. Such associations, we argue, are an essential focus in translational extensions of quantitative models.

show abstract

“…Even in these situations, a variety of animals choose larger amounts of foods when given choices between discrete sets of identical food items (e.g., Addessi, Crescimbene, & Visalberghi, 2008; Anderson, Awazu, & Fujita, 2000; Anderson et al, 2005; Beran, 2001; Call, 2000; Hanus & Call, 2007; Rumbaugh, Savage-Rumbaugh, & Hegel, 1987; Uller, Jaeger, Guidry, & Martin, 2003) and continuous quantities such as liquids (e.g., Suda & Call, 2005; vanMarle, Aw, McCrink, & Santos, 2006; Wood, Hauser, Glynn, & Barner, 2008). Extensive research has shown that magnitude of food reward guides choice behavior in a variety of contexts even when other variables such as delay length to reward and unpredictability of reward also are manipulated (e.g., Green, Myerson, Holt, Slevin, & Estle, 2004; Landon, Davidson, & Elliffe, 2003; MacDonall, 2008; Steinhauer, 1984; Young, 1981). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): The role of magnitude, contiguity, and wholeness.

Beran¹,

Evans²,

Ratliff³

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated choice behavior by chimpanzees in five experiments involving choices between different amounts of food. Chimpanzees did not maximize the amount of food they obtained when choosing between a single 20 g banana piece and another option containing a 20 g piece and a 5 g piece. This was true even though they successfully discriminated between 20 g and 25 g banana pieces in other trials. When items in the mixed option were stacked, however, the chimpanzees chose the larger amount. Later experiments indicated that changing the magnitude of the two amounts did not change performance if the difference in magnitude between the two options remained the same (e.g. 40 g plus 10 g vs. 40 g). However, chimpanzees did improve when the two-item option was increased in its magnitude relative to the single slice (e.g. 20 g plus 10 g vs. 20 g). These results indicated that chimpanzees under-valued the total amount of food in sets when items differed in size and did not appear to be whole. Another experiment confirmed that it was this notion of wholeness that evoked suboptimal responding because chimpanzees were successful in the same comparisons with a different type of food that appeared less fractionated when presented as two pieces. These results provide evidence of suboptimal responding in some natural choice situations that prevents chimpanzees from maximizing food intake. KeywordsChimpanzees; Pan troglodytes; Choice; Magnitude; Contiguity; Wholeness; Foraging; Decisionmaking One of the least controversial claims about animal behavior and decision-making is the claim that animals prefer more food over less food. This behavior is non-controversial because it is assumed to offer as immediate a survival advantage as almost any other skill except perhaps for predator detection. Most natural environments provide strong and continual competition for available caloric resources, and clear survival and reproductive advantages exist for those Correspondence information: Michael J. Beran,

show abstract

Concurrent Schedules: Reinforcer Magnitude Effects

Cited by 39 publications

References 26 publications

Limits to preference and the sensitivity of choice to rate and amount of food

Limits to preference and the sensitivity of choice to rate and amount of food

The Matching Relation and Situation‐specific Bias Modulation in Professional Football Play Selection

Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): The role of magnitude, contiguity, and wholeness.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About