A Quantitative Analysis of Extreme Choice

Davison, Michael; Jones, B. M.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.64-147

Cited by 39 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas s can be thought of as sensitivity to the ratio of reinforcement from the two sources, p is interpreted as proportional confusion between the two sources of reinforcement (Davison & Jones, 1995). It incorporates the idea that whenever the stimuli associated with schedules of reinforcement are imperfectly discriminable, some proportion of the reinforcers obtained from each schedule are associated with the alternative schedule and its discriminative stimulus.…”

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the predictions of the contingency-discriminability model and the generalized matching law differ significantly only when the reinforcement ratio becomes more extreme than usual (e.g., ratios greater than 10:1 or less than 1:10). Davison and Jones (1995) set out to test the contingency-discriminability model by studying choice with reinforcement ratios that var-ied over a wider range than usual: up to about 100:1 and down to about 1:100. They found that the generalized matching law (Equation 4) accounted for about 98% of the variance in choice and that the contingencydiscriminability model (Equation 5) accounted for about 99% of the variance.…”

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, Davison and Jones (1995) used dependent scheduling (Stubbs & Pliskoff, 1969), in which the set-up of a reinforcer for one alternative causes the schedules for both alternatives to stop until the setup reinforcer is obtained, and a 3-s changeover delay (COD), which blocked reinforcement after a switch of schedules until at least 3 s had elapsed. Both of these would tend to add responses to the lean alternative, reducing relative responding at the rich alternative, particularly at the extremes.…”

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More important, Davison and Jones (1995) used unusually confusable stimuli. They arranged a single-key procedure (Findley, 1958), in which the two schedules were associated with two different brightness levels on the main key.…”

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Choice, Contingency Discrimination, and Foraging Theory

Baum

Schwendiman

Bell

1999

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four pigeons were trained on eight or nine pairs of independent concurrent variable-interval schedules. The range of reinforcement ratios included extreme ratios (up to 532 to 1). Large samples of stable performance were gathered. Contrary to the findings of Davison and Jones (1995), the generalized matching law described choice more accurately than a contingency-discriminability model. Taking small samples (5 to 10 sessions) and applying a more liberal stability criterion used by Davison and Jones only increased the unsystematic variance in the data and in estimates of generalizedmatching-law sensitivity. Because changing to dependent scheduling and inserting a changeover delay had no systematic effect, the deviations from generalized matching reported by Davison and Jones probably arose from imperfectly discriminated stimuli. Analysis of visits revealed that visits to the nonpreferred alternative were brief and approximately constant. When choice between the preferred (rich) and nonpreferred (lean) alternatives, regardless of position, was analyzed according to the generalized matching law, sensitivities approximated 1.0, with bias in favor of the lean alternative. This bias, which arose from an excessive frequency of visits to the lean alternative, explains undermatching as the result of fitting one line to a choice relation that consists of two displaced lines, both with a slope of 1.0. The pattern of deviation from the generalized matching line confirmed this account. The findings suggest an alternative analysis of choice that focuses on probability of visiting the lean alternative as the dependent variable. This probability was directly proportional to ratio of reinforcement. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching may all be explained by a view of concurrent performance based on foraging theory, in which responding occurs primarily at the rich alternative and is occasionally interrupted by brief visits to the lean alternative.Key words: choice, generalized matching law, contingency-discriminability model, foraging theory, visit duration, key peck, pigeons Choice has been studied in the experimental analysis of behavior with concurrent schedules of reinforcement. The matching law (Herrnstein, 1961) was first proposed to describe performance on such schedules. The matching relation equates the proportion of responses at an alternative with the proportion of reinforcement obtained from that alternative:where B 1 and B 2 are the rates of responding and r 1 and r 2 are the rates of reinforcement obtained from Alternatives 1 and 2. This equation was later put into the algebraically Some of this research was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Jed Schwendiman's master's degree in psychology. We thank Suzanne Mitchell, William Stine, Randolph Grace, John Nevin, and the University of New Hampshire Behavioral Research Group for helpful comments.

show abstract

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Choice, Contingency Discrimination, and Foraging Theory

Baum

Schwendiman

Bell

1999

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Davison and Jones (1995;Baum, 1974) also assume that some proportion of the reinforcers delivered for one response can strengthen other responses and, from that assumption, develop a model of concurrent choice that is superior to the generalized matching account (cf. Schwendiman, 1997).…”

Section: Table Atmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mechanics of reinforcement

Killeen

Bizo

1998

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mathematical principles of reinforcement were developed in order to (1) account for the interaction of target responding and other behavior; (2) provide a simple graphical representation; (3) deal with measurement artifacts; and (4) permit a coherent transition from a statics to a dynamics of behavior. Rats and pigeons were trained to make a target response while general activity was measured with a stabilimeter, The course ofbehavioral change was represented as a trajectory through a two-dimensional behavior space, The trajectories rotated toward or away from the target dimension as the coupling between the target response and the incentive was varied. Higher rates of reinforcement expanded the trajectories; satiation and extinction contracted them. Concavity in some trajectories provided data for a dynamic generalization of the model. piing is our principle ofselection. This paper will analyze the effects on behavior when these two factors are independently manipulated.The first principle states that the delivery ofincentives increases the activity ofan organism. Killeen (1975) reported levels of general activity in pigeons under a wide range ofreinforcement rates. When corrected for ceilings on response rates, the activity levels were proportional to the rate of reinforcement (see Figure 1). Killeen, Hanson, and Osborne (1978) derived a model of incentive motivation that predicted the change in arousal levels as a function of changes in the rate of reinforcement. They fed pigeons once every day and measured the resulting activity, which averaged 360 responses/reinforcer. They showed that the activation cumulates according to an exponentially weighted moving average, whose output is the arousal level, A:where R is the rate ofreinforcement. Equation 1 predicted Killeen's (1975) data (Figure 1), with a = 360.Killeen (1998) extended the notion of arousal and its accumulation to other contexts, including classical and avoidance conditioning, in which the phenomena of pseudoconditioning and warm-up are its manifestations. The next step is to develop the theory, so as to deal generally with temporal constraints on responding. Constraints on responding.Constraints are limitations-things organisms can't do no matter how powerful the motivation or how effective the conditioning. They are the complements ofpredispositions-things organisms do with seemingly little motivation or conditioning. Skinner (1938) represented this difference in sensitivities to reinforcement in his extinction ratio. Most generally, Seligman (1970) placed responses on a continuum of preparedness, ranging from contra-prepared through neutral to prepared. Here the focus is on temporal constraints-the increasing difficulty of making a response as a function of the ongoing rate of responding. The second principle can be succinctly stated: Responses compete for expression.Motivation, association, and response constraints are central phenomena in learning and performance. A recent

show abstract

Control by reinforcers across time and space: A review of recent choice research

Cowie

Davison

2016

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforcers affect behavior. A fundamental assumption has been that reinforcers strengthen the behavior they follow, and that this strengthening may be context-specific (stimulus control). Less frequently discussed, but just as evident, is the observation that reinforcers have discriminative properties that also guide behavior. We review findings from recent research that approaches choice using nontraditional procedures, with a particular focus on how choice is affected by reinforcers, by time since reinforcers, and by recent sequences of reinforcers. We also discuss how conclusions about these results are impacted by the choice of measurement level and display. Clearly, reinforcers as traditionally considered are conditionally phylogenetically important to animals. However, their effects on behavior may be solely discriminative, and contingent reinforcers may not strengthen behavior. Rather, phylogenetically important stimuli constitute a part of a correlated compound stimulus context consisting of stimuli arising from the organism, from behavior, and from physiologically detected environmental stimuli. Thus, the three-term contingency may be seen, along with organismic state, as a correlation of stimuli. We suggest that organisms may be seen as natural stimulus-correlation detectors so that behavioral change affects the overall correlation and directs the organism toward currently appetitive goals and away from potential aversive goals. As a general conclusion, both historical and recent choice research supports the idea that stimulus control, not reinforcer control, may be fundamental.

show abstract

A Quantitative Analysis of Extreme Choice

Cited by 39 publications

References 28 publications

Choice, Contingency Discrimination, and Foraging Theory

Choice, Contingency Discrimination, and Foraging Theory

The mechanics of reinforcement

Control by reinforcers across time and space: A review of recent choice research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About