MOLAR VERSUS LOCAL REINFORCEMENT PROBABILITY AS DETERMINANTS OF STIMULUS VALUE

• Published in: Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior Vol. 59; no. 1; pp. 163 - 172
• Main Author: Williams, Ben A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.1993; Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
• Subjects: Animal; Animal behavior; Animals; Appetitive Behavior; Biological and medical sciences; Birds; Choice Behavior; choice theory; Columbidae; concurrent VI VI schedules; Conditioning; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; key peck; Learning. Memory; Male; melioration; Mental Recall; Motivation; pigeons; Probability; Probability Learning; probability of reinforcement; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Reinforcement Schedule; scalar expectancy; Vertebrata; Operant conditioning; Acquisition process; Concurrent program; Animal; Reinforcement probability; Luminous stimulus; Value; Variable ratio reinforcement; Aves; Pigeon
• ISSN: 0022-5002; 1938-3711
• DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-163

During one component of a multiple schedule, pigeons were trained on a discrete‐trial concurrent variable‐interval variable‐interval schedule in which one alternative had a high scheduled rate of reinforcement and the other a low scheduled rate of reinforcement. When the choice proportion between the alternatives matched their respective relative reinforcement frequencies, the obtained probabilities of reinforcement (reinforcer per peck) were approximately equal. In alternate components of the multiple schedule, a single response alternative was presented with an intermediate scheduled rate of reinforcement. During probe trials, each alternative of the concurrent schedule was paired with the constant alternative. The stimulus correlated with the high reinforcement rate was preferred over that with the intermediate rate, whereas the stimulus correlated with the intermediate rate of reinforcement was preferred over that correlated with the low rate of reinforcement. Preference on probe tests was thus determined by the scheduled rate of reinforcement. Other subjects were presented all three alternatives individually, but with a distribution of trial frequency and reinforcement probability similar to that produced by the choice patterns of the original subjects. Here, preferences on probe tests were determined by the obtained probabilities of reinforcement. Comparison of the two sets of results indicates that the availability of a choice alternative, even when not responded to, affects the preference for that alternative. The results imply that models of choice that invoke only obtained probability of reinforcement as the controlling variable (e.g., melioration) are inadequate.