Multiple Schedule Component Duration: A Re‐analysis of Shimp and Wheatley (1971) and Todorov (1972)

Edmon, Eugene L.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1978.30-239

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, several studies show that the modification of Equation 2, which Herrnstein (1970) proposed for multiple schedules, is also incorrect. Contrary to what Herrnstein's theory predicts, Edmon (1978) did not find an increase in the rates of responding as the components of the multiple schedule got longer. Several studies nave also shown that Herrnstein's theory makes incorrect predictions about the relation between simple and multiple-schedule responding (see McSweeney, 1980).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Herrnstein’s equation for the rates of responding during concurrent schedules

McSweeney

Melville

Whipple

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A modification of the nonlinear curve-fitting procedure proposed by Wetherington and Lucas (1980) was used to assess how well Herrnstein's (1970) equation for the rates of responding during concurrent schedules described performance. The equation fitted some results very well, accounting for 80% or more of the variance in the data in studies that used moderateduration changeover delays and provided the same positive reinforcers, operanda, and simple schedules in the two components. The equation fitted the data poorly in other studies. The k parameter changed with several variables; it was not as constant as Herrnstein (1974)

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Herrnstein’s equation for the rates of responding during concurrent schedules

McSweeney

Melville

Whipple

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But there is one exception to this conclusion: the relation between component response rates and the alternation ratio requirement found in Experiment 1 and replicated in Experiment 2. This result has not been found in conventional multiple-schedule performance when component duration is varied (Charman & Davison, 1982;Edmon, 1978). We can offer no explanation for this difference.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 54%

Effects of Response‐allocation Constraints on Multiple‐schedule Performance

Davison

Charman

1987

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four pigeons were trained on multiple variable-interval schedules in which components alternated after a fixed number of responses had been emitted. In Part 1, each component change occurred after 20 responses; in Part 2, the number was 40; and in Part 3, the number of responses before change was 10. Component reinforcer rates were varied over five experimental conditions in each of Parts 1 to 3. Component response rates decreased as the specified number of responses per component was increased. However, the relation between component response-rate ratios and component reinforcerrate ratios was independent of the specified number of responses per component, and was similar to that found when components alternate after fixed time periods. In the fourth part of the experiment, the results from Parts 1 to 3 were systematically replicated by keeping the component reinforcer rates constant, but different, while the number of responses that produced component alternation was varied from 5 to 60 responses. The results showed that multiple-schedule performance under component-response-number constraint is similar to that under conventional component-duration constraint. They further suggest that multiple-schedule response rates are controlled by component reinforcer rates and not by principles of maximizing overall reinforcer rates or meliorating component reinforcer rates.Key words: multiple schedules, time allocation, response allocation, response constraints, molar maximizing, melioration, generalized matching, pecking, pigeonsThe generalized matching law (Baum, 1974(Baum, , 1979) provides a convenient description of behavior allocation as a function of reinforcers obtained in both concurrent and multiple variable-interval (VI) schedules. This law suggests that behavior ratios are a power function of obtained reinforcer ratios. For multiple schedules, if the two component responses are subscripted w and r, and if B is the number of responses emitted, T is the time spent in the components, and X is the number of reinforcers obtained, then: log (BwIw) = a log ( 4W) + log c, (1) where the parameter a is called sensitivity to reinforcement

show abstract

“…In spite of its ability to account for a variety of different findings, Equation 9 also makes several incorrect predictions, as noted by several investigators (deVilliers, 1977;Edmon, 1978;McSweeney, 1980;McSweeney & Dericco, 1976;Spealman & Gollub, 1974 One problem that remains even with Equation 10 is the effect of absolute rate of reinforcement on the magnitude of contrast. As noted by Spealman and Gollub (1974) and McLean and White (in press),Equation 9 predicts that contrast should be greater the higher the rate of reinforcement, and this is true for Equation 10 as well.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Contrastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Another Look at Contrast in Multiple Schedules

Williams¹

1983

J Exper Analysis Behavior

192

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on multiple schedule interactions is reviewed. Contrary to formulations that view contrast as the result of elicited behavior controlled by the stimulus-reinforcer contingency (e.g., additivity theory), the major controlling variable is the relative rate of reinforcement, which cannot be reduced to some combination of stimulus-reinforcer and response-reinforcer effects. Other recent theoretical formulations are also reviewed and all are found to face serious counterevidence. The best description of the available data continues to be in terms of the "context of reinforcement," but Herrnstein's (1970) formulation of the basis of such context effects appears to be inadequate. An alternative conception is provided by Catania's concept of "inhibition by reinforcement," by which rate of responding is inversely related to the average rate of reinforcement in the situation. Such a conception is related to Gibbon's recent scalar-expectancy account of autoshaping and Fantino's delay-reduction model of conditioned reinforcement, suggesting that a common set of principles determines several diverse conditioning phenomena. However, the empirical status of such a description remains uncertain, because recent evidence shows that schedule interactions are temporally asymmetric, depending primarily upon the conditions of reinforcement that follow a schedule component.

show abstract

Multiple Schedule Component Duration: A Re‐analysis of Shimp and Wheatley (1971) and Todorov (1972)

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

Herrnstein’s equation for the rates of responding during concurrent schedules

Herrnstein’s equation for the rates of responding during concurrent schedules

Effects of Response‐allocation Constraints on Multiple‐schedule Performance

Another Look at Contrast in Multiple Schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About