The role of probability of reinforcement in models of choice.

Abstract

A general account of choice behavior in animals, the cumulative effects model, has been proposed by Davis, Staddon, Machado, and Palmer (1993). Its basic assumptions are that choice occurs in an all-or-none fashion for the response alternative with the highest probability of reinforcement and that the probability of reinforcement for each response alternative is calculated from the entire history of training (total number of reinforced responses/total number of reinforced and nonreinforced responses). The model's reliance on probability of reinforcement as the fundamental variable controlling choice behavior subjects the cumulative effects model to the same criticisms as have been directed toward other related models of choice, notably melioration theory. Several different data sets show that the relative value of a response alternative is not predicted by the obtained probability of reinforcement associated with that alternative. Alternative approaches to choice theory are considered.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.