The Integration of Reinforcements over Time

Lea, Stephen E. G.; Dow, S. M.

doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23436.x

Cited by 25 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first account involves what Herrnstein called melioration, which is "the process of comparing the rates of return and shifting toward the alternative that is currently yielding the better return" (Herrnstein and Prelec, 1991, p. 361). Some version of this idea has been the basis for most attempts to explain matching behavior, although none of these attempts has succeeded in specifying the details in such a way as to yield a model that captures the details of the behavior (Lea and Dow, 1984;Herrnstein and Prelec, 1991). A particularly vexing problem has been the specification of the interval over which subjects average when estimating their returns.…”

Section: Two Contrasting Accountsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…It works equally well regardless of the time scale set by the rates of event occurrence. Models with averaging windows, which is to say most other models for matching (Lea and Dow, 1984;Staddon, 1988), impose a time scale when they specify the width of the averaging window. The model then works only for events on that time scale.…”

Section: The Learning Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The wider this averaging window, the more slowly subjects will approach the new stable equilibrium when the relative richness of the schedules changes. Melioration models have never been able to specify an empirically defensible averaging window (Lea and Dow, 1984).…”

Section: Two Contrasting Accountsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Deconstructing the law of effect

Gallistel

2005

Games and Economic Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Two Contrasting Accountsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Learning Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deconstructing the law of effect

Gallistel

2005

Games and Economic Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The difference has potentially far reaching implications for our understanding of instrumentally conditioned behavior. Unlike most previous models, Gibbon's model does not assume that the consequences of previous responses feed back to affect the relative strengths of competing behaviors (for a review of models of this type, see Lea & Dow, 1984). Gibbon's model is a purely feedforward model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Test of Gibbon's Feedforward Model of Matching

Gallistel

Mark

King

et al. 2002

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gibbon (1995) elaborated an ingenious model of matching, a feedforward model that is consistent with Heyman's (1982) suggestion that matching behavior does not depend on selection by consequences. Most models (for example, Herrnstein & Vaughan, 1980) have been feedback models, built on the law of effect. Measurements of how rapidly rats adjust to changes in the relative rates of brain stimulation reward on concurrent random interval schedules imply a feedforward process. The adjustments are, however, too fast to be consistent with Gibbon's model. John Gibbon pioneered the psychophysical study of interval timing and the application of information-processing models to our understanding of conditioned behavior. Among his many, highly original contributions was a model of matching behavior (Gibbon, 1995), which differed in a fundamental way from previous models. The difference has potentially far reaching implications for our understanding of instrumentally conditioned behavior. Unlike most previous models, Gibbon's model does not assume that the consequences of previous responses feed back to affect the relative strengths of competing behaviors (for a review of models of this type, see Lea & Dow, 1984). Gibbon's model is a purely feedforward model. The experience of different intervals between rewards elicits stay durations inversely proportionate to the ratio of those intervals, without regard to the effect that the animal's behavior has on those intervals.The law of effect ought to apply with exceptional directness when subjects are given a matching protocol. Thorndike (1911, p. 244) wrote ''The Law of Effect is that: Of several responses made to the same situation, those 46 0023-9690/02 $35.00

show abstract

“…South Parks Road. Oxford OXI 3UD U.K., or Todd R. Schachtman, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri,Columbia,MO 65211. optimal outcome is achieved is the subject of some debate (see Krebs, Kacelnik, & Taylor, 1978;Lea & Dow, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrumental responding by rats on free-operant schedules with components that schedule response-dependent reinforcer omission: Implications for optimization theories

Reed

Schachtman

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we assessed whether rats optimize the number of reinforcers per response. In Experiment 1, one group of rats was trained to leverpress for food reinforcement on a simple variable-interval (VI) 60-sec schedule. For another group, a negative fixed-ratio component was imposed on the VI schedule to produce a conjoint contingency in which reinforcement became available on the VI schedule but was omitted when the ratio criterion was satisfied. In Experiment 2, one group of rats responded on a VI schedule and also received response-independent food. For another group, responding above a certain rate canceled the response-independent food. Despite the negative contingency experienced by the groups in Experiments 1 and 2, responding was maintained at a level at which the number of obtained reinforcers was reduced substantially below the maximum number possible. In addition, in both experiments, the groups that experienced the negative contingency responded at a lower rate than did a yoked control group that experienced the same frequency of reinforcement but lacked the negative component. These results demonstrate that although rats do not optimize their behavior with respect to reinforcement, they are nevertheless sensitive to some aspect of the instrumental contingency in operation.

show abstract

The Integration of Reinforcements over Time

Cited by 25 publications

References 22 publications

Deconstructing the law of effect

Deconstructing the law of effect

A Test of Gibbon's Feedforward Model of Matching

Instrumental responding by rats on free-operant schedules with components that schedule response-dependent reinforcer omission: Implications for optimization theories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About