Sensitivity to molar feedback functions: A test of molar optimality theory.

Abstract

Molar optimality models assume that any reward schedule can be described by a molar feedback function, which is the relation between average response rates and average reinforcement rates en-forced by that particular schedule. This molar feedback function is considered, by optimality models, to be a sufficient description of the schedule for the prediction of steady-state molar perfor-mance. In this article we challenge the fundamental assumption of all molar optimality models-that animals are directly sensitive to this molar feedback function. We found that animals were sensitive to the schedule conditions in effect, especially at the molecular level of postfood time, but they were not directly sensitive to the slopes of any ofthe molar feedback functions that we manipu-lated. Our data do not simply represent a failure to maximize a particular utility function so that this form of the function requires alteration. Rather, they demonstrate that animals may not be sensitive to the molar rates of responding and reinforcement described by the molar feedback func-tions. Our animals were sensitive to the schedules at a molecular level, and it is to this molecular level that we should direct our attention. Operant behavior can be explained in terms of its antecedents (causal accounts) or its consequences (functional accounts). The best developed functional accounts are in terms of optimal-ity theory. Consequences can be measured moment by moment (molecular accounts) or as averages (molar accounts). Molar op-timality accounts measure consequences in terms of the molar feedback function (MFF: Baum, 1973; Kagel, Battalio, Green,

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 — 47 citations exist upstream.

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