Reinforcer quality matters: A test of the Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement with domestic hens (Gallus gallus domesticus)

Abstract

This study evaluated the ability of Killeen's (1994) Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement to account for the effects of changes in reinforcer quality on hens' rates of responding on fixed-ratio schedules. Hens were trained to peck a key on a fixed-ratio schedule of reinforcement and then experienced an ascending series of ratio values in two separate conditions. In different conditions, the food reinforcer was either wheat or puffed wheat. Response rates initially increased with increases in ratio requirement before eventually decreasing at larger ratios. Quantitative fits of the model accounted for the data well. The fits revealed that different foods were systematically associated with changes in the specific activation parameter, a, and these were consistent with previous reports of preference for those food items.

Cooperative responding in rats: II. Performance on fixed‐ratio schedules of mutual reinforcement

“…These results are consistent with an extensive literature showing the effects of FR size and reinforcement rates (interreinforcement intervals) on individual organisms responding under simple FR schedules (e.g., Bizo & Killeen, 1997;Bruce et al, 2019;Mazur, 1983), or for FR requirements that are part of more complex schedules (e.g., Foster et al, 2001;Shull, 1970;Zeiler & Buchman, 1979). Experiments using simple FR schedules have consistently shown inverted U-shaped functions relating FR requirement and response rates; monotonic increases in PRPs as a function of FR sizes; and break-andrun pattern of responding engendered by the FR schedules (e.g., Ferster & Skinner, 1957;Mazur, 1983;Powell, 1968).…”

“…At a certain point, decreases in reinforcement rates lead to lower rates of responding (Killeen, 1994). Parametric manipulations of FR values have produced a relationship represented by a bitonic inverted U‐shaped function between response rates and ratio sizes (e.g., Baum, 1993; Bizo & Killeen, 1997; Bruce et al, 2019; Killeen, 1994; Mazur, 1983; Zeiler & Buchman, 1979).…”