Constant versus variable delay of reinforcement.

Pubols, Benjamin H.

doi:10.1037/h0048566

Cited by 42 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…forcement (Fantino, 1967;Herrnstein, 1964;Killeen, 1968, Experiment 1; Sherman and Thomas, 1968). In addition, the present data replicate the reports of Logan (1965, Experiment 1) and Pubols (1962), both of whom used a discrete-trial procedure, that rats prefer variable relative to constant delay of reinforcement.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…The absence of a distinction implies that these two types of delayed reinforcement do not differentially influence choice behavior. However, there is evidence both that aperiodic reinforcement schedules are preferred to periodic schedules (e.g., Fantino, 1967;Herrnstein, 1964;Killeen, 1968, Experiment 1; Sherman and Thomas, 1968) and that delay intervals of varying duration are preferred to delay intervals of constant duration (Logan, 1965, Experiment 1; Pubols, 1962). Although the latter two investigators reported results that contradict Shimp's (MARCH) masking noise was always present during each experimental session.…”

contrasting

confidence: 49%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Cicerone

1976

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

contrasting

confidence: 49%

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

Cicerone

1976

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, the pigeons responded at a higher rate when the Sr was correlated with the VI schedule of primary reinforcement. Similarly, rats were found to prefer the side of a Y-maze in which reinforcement was delayed for either 0 or 30 sec over the side in which reinforcement was always delayed by 15 sec (Pubols, 1962). Neither of these two experiments revealed how the component rates of reinforcement on the variable schedule might be averaged so that preference might be approximated by the relative rates of reinforcement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED‐ VERSUS FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES¹

Fantino

1967

J Exper Analysis Behavior

147

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons' pecks on one key produced a stimulus correlated with a mixed-ratio schedule of food reinforcement. Pecks on a second key produced a stimulus correlated with a fixed-ratio schedule. When the arithmetic mean of the mixed ratios equaled the fixed ratio, the former stimulus maintained a higher rate of pecking. When the fixed ratio was sufficiently smaller, preference shifted to it. The pigeons' relative preference for the schedules could be described by comparing the geometric mean of the reinforcement rates in the several mixedratio components with the reinforcement rates in the fixed-ratio components.Chained schedules of reinforcement are a useful tool in studying secondary (or conditioned) reinforcement. In a two-link chained schedule, for example, responding in the presence of a first stimulus is reinforced by a second stimulus; responding in the presence of the second stimulus is reinforced with food (Ferster and Skinner, 1957). Kelleher and Gollub (1962) have presented evidence that responding in the early links of a chain is maintained primarily by conditioned reinforcement. If two chained schedules are concurrently available, an organism's preference for one secondary reinforcer (Sr) relative to the other Sr may be measured by the relative amount of responding (responses on one key/total responses) maintained by that Sr. The organism may be required to choose between two SrS when each is correlated with a different schedule of primary reinforcement (Autor, 1960;Reynolds, 1963). Using this technique, Herrnstein (1964a) showed that the relative rate at which pigeons' pecks were maintained by a secondary reinforcer matched the relative rate of primary reinforcement in its presence when primary reinforcement was programmed on variable-interval (VI) or variable-ratio (VR) (Herrnstein, 1964b). Instead, the pigeons responded at a higher rate when the Sr was correlated with the VI schedule of primary reinforcement. Similarly, rats were found to prefer the side of a Y-maze in which reinforcement was delayed for either 0 or 30 sec over the side in which reinforcement was always delayed by 15 sec (Pubols, 1962

show abstract

“…They suggested that the smaller interreinforcement intervals within a schedule playa predominant role in determining the relative preferences for those schedules. It should be noted that Pubols (1962) also demonstrated that a bivalued distribution of reinforcement delays was preferred over a constant delay with equal mean value when evaluated via rats' choices of alleys in a Y-maze.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative preferences for various bivalued ratio schedules

Ahearn

Hineline

David

1992

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Widely cited experiments on optimal foraging have used bivalued distributions as representing environmental stochasticity, characterizing these in terms of their arithmetic means. In contrast, research on free-operant choice has established that organisms prefer variable patterns of food delivery, relative to fixed patterns with the same mean values. To explore such departures from linear averaging, specifically with respect to bivalued alternatives, pigeons were given choices between a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule offood delivery that required 15, 30, or 60 responses and bivalued variable-ratio schedules with an arithmetic mean of 60.5 or 60. A bivalued schedule of 1 and 120 was preferred almost exclusively over each of the FR values. With a bivalued schedule of 15 and 105, there was a shift of preference, most notably in the FR-15 condition, but in no case was linear averaging a good predictor of the birds' choices. Geometric averaging fared better, but even this failed to represent the apparent salience of the minimum value of the bivalued schedule in some conditions.

show abstract

Constant versus variable delay of reinforcement.

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED‐ VERSUS FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES¹

Relative preferences for various bivalued ratio schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Constant versus variable delay of reinforcement.

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT1

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT1

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED‐ VERSUS FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES1

Relative preferences for various bivalued ratio schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED VERSUS CONSTANT DELAY OF REINFORCEMENT¹

PREFERENCE FOR MIXED‐ VERSUS FIXED‐RATIO SCHEDULES¹