HOW TO TEACH A PIGEON TO MAXIMIZE OVERALL REINFORCEMENT RATE

Gene M. Heyman · Lawrence Tanz

73 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Behavioral and Psychological Studies Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Abstract

In two experiments deviations from matching earned higher overall reinforcement rates than did matching. In Experiment 1 response proportions were calculated over a 360-response moving average, updated with each response. Response proportions that differed from the nominal reinforcement proportions, by a criterion that was gradually increased, were eligible for reinforcement. Response proportions that did not differ from matching were not eligible for reinforcement. When the deviation requirement was relatively small, the contingency proved to be effective. However, there was a limit as to how far response proportions could be pushed from matching. Consequently, when the deviation requirement was large, overall reinforcement rate decreased and pecking was eventually extinguished. In Experiment 2 a discriminative stimulus was added to the procedure. The houselight was correlated with the relationship between response proportions and the nominal (programmed) reinforcement proportions. When the difference between response and reinforcement proportions met the deviation requirement, the light was white and responses were eligible for reinforcement. When the difference between response and reinforcement proportions failed to exceed the deviation requirement, the light was blue and responses were not eligible for reinforcement. With the addition of the light, it proved to be possible to shape deviations from matching without any apparent limit. Thus, in Experiment 2 overall reinforcement rate predicted choice proportions and relative reinforcement rate did not. In contrast, in previous experiments on the relationship between matching and overall reinforcement maximization, relative reinforcement rate was usually the better predictor of responding. The results show that whether overall or relative reinforcement rate better predicts choice proportions may in part be determined by stimulus conditions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 73 citations exist upstream.

References

1970ON THE LAW OF EFFECT 1 1961RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE STRENGTH OF RESPONSE AS A FUNCTION OF FREQUENCY OF REINFORCEMENT 1, 2 1962A PROGRESSION FOR GENERATING VARIABLE‐INTERVAL SCHEDULES 1 1969CHOICE AS TIME ALLOCATION 1 1992Choice Over Time 1969CONCURRENT RESPONDING WITH FIXED RELATIVE RATE OF REINFORCEMENT1 1993Utility maximization and melioration: Internalities in individual choice 1979IS MATCHING COMPATIBLE WITH REINFORCEMENT MAXIMIZATION ON CONCURRENT VARIABLE INTERVAL, VARIABLE RATIO?1

Cited by

1996POINTING AT SMALLER FOOD AMOUNTS IN AN ANALOGUE OF BOYSEN AND BERNTSON'S (1995) PROCEDURE 2002Self-control by pigeons in the prisoner's dilemma 2003Learning by pigeons playing against tit-for-tat in an operant prisoner’s dilemma 1996Is melioration the addiction theory of choice?1996The behavioral economics of addiction: A comprehensive alternative 1996A scientific fix for the classical account of addiction

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.