Six hens were exposed to several concurrent (second-order) variable-interval schedules in which the response requirements on the alternatives were varied. The response requirements were one key peck versus five key pecks, one key peck versus one door push, and five key pecks versus one door push. Response-and time-allocation ratios undermatched the obtained reinforcement ratios but were well described by the generalized matching law. Time and response bias estimates from two pairs of response requirements were used to predict bias in the third pairing. The predicted values were close to those obtained; this result supports the notion that both numerically and topographically different responses act as constant sources of bias within the generalized matching law. The differences between the response and time biases could be accounted for by the different times needed to complete each response requirement. The results also suggest that the door push is a useful operant for research with domestic hens.

Concurrent schedules were used to establish 6 hens' preferences for three foods. The resulting biases suggested wheat was preferred over honey-puffed and puffed wheat, and puffed wheat was the least preferred food. The hens then responded under fixed-ratio schedules for each food in 40-min (excluding reinforcer time) sessions, with the response requirement doubling each session until no reinforcers were received. At the smaller ratios, the less preferred the food, the faster the hens' overall response rates (mainly as a result of shorter postreinforcement pauses) and the more reinforcers they received. The relations between the logarithms of the number of reinforcers obtained (consumption) and the response ratio (price) were well fitted by curvilinear demand functions. Wheat produced the smallest initial consumption (ln L), followed by honey-puffed and puffed wheat, respectively. The response requirement at which the demand functions predicted maximal responding (P(max)) were larger for wheat than for the other foods. Normalizing consumption and price, as suggested by Hursh and Winger (1995), moved the data for the three foods towards a single demand function; however, the P(max) values were generally largest for puffed wheat. The results of normalization, as suggested by Hursh and Silberberg (2008), depended on the k value used. The parameter k is related to the range of the data, and the same k value needs to be used for all data sets that are compared. A k value of 8.0 gave significantly higher essential values (smaller alpha values) for puffed wheat as compared to honey-puffed wheat and wheat, and the P(max) values, in normalized standard price units, were largest for puffed wheat. Normalizing demand by converting the puffed and honey-puffed wheat reinforcers to wheat equivalents (by applying the bias parameter from the concurrent-schedules procedure) maintained separate demand functions for the foods. Those for wheat had the smallest rates of change in elasticity (a) and, in contrast to the other analyses, the largest P(max) values. Normalizing demand in terms of concurrent-schedule preference appears to have some advantages and to merit further investigation.

Six hens responded on concurrent variable-interval (key-peck) variable-interval (door-push) schedules of reinforcement in which the second-order (fixed-ratio) requirements on the alternatives (Experiment 1) or the required door forces (Experiment 2) were varied. The key-peck and door-push response (measured as fixed-ratio completion) and time data were well described by the generalized matching law. However, the manipulations of fixed-ratio requirement and required response force differed in their effects. The manipulations of fixed-ratio size affected the response and time measures differently, producing fairly constant, multiplicative biases only in terms of response allocation. It was argued that variations in fixed-ratio size necessarily change the time allocated to that response unit, and thus changes in time bias were not necessarily a fundamental effect of changing the ratio. In contrast, the changes in response bias were a fundamental result of changes in ratio size. The response-force manipulations produced similar bias shifts in terms of response and time allocation, but they appeared to combine with relative reinforcement rate to affect choice interactively. Specifically, behavior appeared to be biased towards the least effortful (i.e., key-peck) response, but the increases in door force had a larger effect on bias when the hens were making this response infrequently (on a lean schedule). The different effects of the fixed-ratio and response-force manipulations on concurrent performance were partially accounted for by the differing times required to complete each response unit under those manipulations, but this would not account for the interaction. The interaction would be consonant with increased response effort decreasing the effective value of the associated reinforcement schedule.

Animals' behavioral needs have become an important component of animal welfare legislation. Behavioral economics provides a framework for the study of such needs. A function, analogous to a demand function relating consumption rate to price, can be obtained by increasing the price (or work) required for access to a commodity. This experiment investigated the effects of different response types and price manipulations on these functions. Six hens pushed a door or pecked a key for food under open economic conditions (short experimental sessions and supplementary food). In Part 1, the number of door pushes required (fixed‐ratio schedule) was increased each session, and the force needed to push the door was increased across conditions. In Part 2, the force needed to push the door was increased session to session, and the fixed‐ratio schedule was increased across conditions. In Part 3, the number of key pecks required was increased each session. Both response types produced similarly shaped (approximately linear in logarithmic coordinates and downward sloping) demand functions when price was increased by increasing the number of responses required. These imply an elastic demand for food under these conditions. In contrast, increasing the force required to push the door resulted in highly curvilinear functions. These functions indicated little change in consumption across lower door forces and abrupt drops in consumption at higher force requirements, implying mixed elasticity in the animals' demand for food. The differences between the shapes of the two functions seem to arise from the different ways that the two price manipulations alter the time taken to complete the work required. Increasing the fixed‐ratio requirement necessarily increases the time needed to complete each response unit, whereas increasing the force requirement does not. The different shapes of the functions were robust when either force or number was varied across sessions and the value of the other was varied over conditions. They were also robust when the price increases were taken from different conditions, showing that the shapes of the functions were independent of the place in the experiment in which the price was examined. Unit price (which combines number and force into a single price measure) unified the data from the two price manipulations to a large degree, producing moderately curved functions. However, there was some variance around the unit price functions, and this was attributable to the different shapes of the underlying functions. The data suggest that different price manipulations may give different measures of animal demand but that unit price might provide some unification.

This experiment tested the transitivity of hens' choices between response requirements differing in both form and number. In a concurrent second-order schedule procedure, 6 hens chose between two alternatives by making either key-peck or door-push responses. The reinforcement rates on the two alternatives remained constant and equal throughout conditions, but the number of responses (i.e., key pecks or door pushes) required on each alternative was varied by changing the secondorder (fixed-ratio) requirements. The preferences obtained from two pairings of response requirements allowed prediction of the preferences expected in a third pairing. No intransitivities were found, implying that the response requirements lie on a common unitary scale of value. For response-based measures, the obtained preferences varied evenly around perfect, multiplicative prediction, and all satisfied strong transitivity, implying an underlying interval scale of value. For timebased measures, only moderate transitivity was satisfied, implying only an ordinal scale of value. Time-based measures were confounded with the differing times taken to complete each response requirement. The existence of such scales indicates that direct comparisons of different response requirements may be possible.