Predicting and Scaling Hens' Preferences for Topographically Different Responses

Abstract

Six hens were exposed to several concurrent (second-order) variable-interval schedules in which the response requirements on the alternatives were varied. The response requirements were one key peck versus five key pecks, one key peck versus one door push, and five key pecks versus one door push. Response-and time-allocation ratios undermatched the obtained reinforcement ratios but were well described by the generalized matching law. Time and response bias estimates from two pairs of response requirements were used to predict bias in the third pairing. The predicted values were close to those obtained; this result supports the notion that both numerically and topographically different responses act as constant sources of bias within the generalized matching law. The differences between the response and time biases could be accounted for by the different times needed to complete each response requirement. The results also suggest that the door push is a useful operant for research with domestic hens.

Response Form, Force, and Number: Effects on Concurrent‐schedule Performance

“…Consistent with the results of Beautrais and Davison (1977), the change in the FR (key) requirement produced larger bias shifts in the FR completion measures than in the time measures. In the Sumpter et al (1995) study, however, the resulting response and time biases were, on occasion, in different directions. In addition, the sensitivity of both behavior measures changed when the response requirements changed.…”

“…Force manipulations appear to produce similar changes in both response and time allocation (Hunter & Davison, 1982), whereas different response forms (Davison & Ferguson, 1978;McSweeney, 1978;Wheatley & Engberg, 1978) and changes in FR requirements of second-order schedules (Beautrais & Davison, 1977;Sumpter et al, 1995) seem to affect time and response measures differently. Changes in second-order requirements also appear to affect sensitivity to reinforcement-rate changes, either in terms of both response and time allocation (Sumpter et al, 1995) or in terms of RESPONSE FORM, FORCE, AND NUMBER response allocation only (Beautrais & Davison, 1977), whereas force manipulations do not (Hunter & Davison, 1982). Sensitivity may be different for different response forms, but data are insufficient for any conclusions to be drawn.…”

“…Choice between different response requirements has been examined in three ways: (a) by using different response forms (Davison & Ferguson, 1978;Hanson & Green, 1986;McSweeney, 1978;Sumpter, Foster, & Temple, 1995;Wheatley & Engberg, 1978), (b) by changing the second-order requirements of second-order schedules (Beautrais & Davison, 1977;Cohen, 1975;Sumpter et al, 1995), and (c) by varying the required force of the response (Chung, 1965;Hunter & Davison, 1982).…”

“…Apart from Sumpter et al (1995), studies investigating the effects of different response forms have examined choice between one key peck and one treadle press over a range of reinforcement rates (Davison & Ferguson, 1978;Hanson & Green, 1986;McSweeney, 1978;Wheatley & Engberg, 1978). The results of these studies were well described by the generalized matching law, but performance was biased towards the key-peck requirement.…”

“…However, in terms of time allocation, the changes in neither bias nor sensitivity were significant. Sumpter et al (1995) varied both response form (key peck and door push) and FR requirements under concurrent second-order schedules of reinforcement. They found that when single responses were required, performance was biased towards the key alternative.…”