A test of the melioration theory of matching.

Williams, Ben; Royalty, Paul

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.15.2.99

Cited by 34 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous experiments testing melioration theory suggest that these two assumptions cannot both be correct. In those experiments (Belke, 1992;Gibbon, 1995;Williams,1993;Williams & Royalty, 1989), two separate concurrent schedules were presented in a multiple schedule. For example, Belke presented a concurrent VI 40-sec VI 80-sec schedule in one component and a concurrent VI 40-sec VI 20-sec schedule in the alternative component of the multiple schedule.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In an effort to assess the melioration theory of matching (see Williams, 1988, for a review), Williams and Royalty (1989) presented pigeons a multiple schedule in which concurrent VI 20-sec VI 120-sec schedules operated in Component A, whereas concurrent VI 60-sec VI 80-sec schedules operated in Component B. The fundamentalassumption of the meliorationtheory of matching is that the obtained local rate of reinforcement is the primary determinant of choice and that matching results whenever the obtained local rates of reinforcement are equal for the different choice alternatives.Given that matching occurred in both components of the multiple schedule, the obtained local reinforcement rates during Component A were 210 reinforcers/h for both choicealternatives, whereas the local rates of reinforcement for both choice alternatives during Component B were 105 reinforcers/h.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Bell

Williams

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response strength is a theoretical construct that has been related to empirical measures in a variety of ways. Skinner (1938) proposed the concept of reflex reserve, which he measured by resistance to extinction.Later, after abandoning reflex reserve (e.g., Skinner, 1950), he invoked probability of respondingas the measure of strength,with response rate serving as a surrogate for probability. Herrnstein (1970) proposed choice behavior as a more appropriate measure, on the basis of his demonstration of orderly relationships between choice behavior and reinforcement rates for concurrent schedules (the matching law), which he then extrapolated to simple and multiple schedules of reinforcement. Nevin (1974) proposed yet a third measure of response strength: resistance to change. Nevin (1974) defined response strength by using the concept of behavioral momentum, which implies that the strength of behavior is indexed by the persistence of responding in the presence of various disrupters (e.g., additional response-independent food). A critical issue for behavior analysis is to identify the relationshipbetween these different measures of response strength. Moreover, to the extent that they do not covary, which measure is more useful for determining the fundamental laws of behavior?Dissociations between response rate and preference and between response rate and resistance to change have been demonstrated in studies of anticipatory behavioral contrast. Williams (1991Williams ( , 1992 presented pigeons a four-component multiple schedule in which two target components(A and B) with identical reinforcement schedules were followed differentially by either extinction or a higher rate of reinforcement. Response rate was higher during ComponentA, which was followed by extinction. However, in probe tests in which the stimuli correlated with Component A and Component B were presented together, preference was in favor of the stimulus correlated with Component B, which had been followed by the richer schedule. Thus, the increase in response rate produced by the contrast procedure was inversely related to the measure of preference. A similar dissociation between response rate and resistance to change was reported by Nevin, Smith, and Roberts (1987), who used a similar four-component schedule and then measured the degree of response persistence during various disruptors. Here, greater resistance to change occurred for the target component followed by the richer schedule.On the basis of this and other evidence, Nevin (1979Nevin ( , 1992Nevin & Grace, 2000) has argued that resistance to change and preference are strongly, and perhaps perfectly, correlated measures of response strength and that both are more orderly indices of the effects of reinforcement training than is response rate. Nevin has further argued that the critical determinant of resistance to change is the rate of reinforcement in the presence of a stimulus, even when that reinforcement may not be contingent on operant responding in the presence of the stimulus. For exampl...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Bell

Williams

2002

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Williams and Royalty (1989) and Williams (1993Williams ( , 1994 A ith VI:J. That is, the transition out ofB mto occurs WI a probability equal to the relative reinforcement~~te f~r A, as described above (Equation 1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse

Gibbon

1995

Psychon Bull Rev

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Matching of time allocation across alternatives in proportion to relative reinforcement rates is a ubiquitous finding in the animal-learning literature on choice. The dynamics ofthe underlying mechanism, however, remain poorly understood. A recent finding by Belke (1992) profoundly challenges scalar expectancy theory (SET; Gibbon et al., 1988) and other accounts of matching in concurrent variable interval (VI) schedules. He studied concurrent probe tests of stimuli associated with equal VIs but trained in alternative concurrent pairs. In training, one was preferred and the other not. Unreinforced probes revealed a strong preference for the alternative preferred in training. An experiment is reported replicating this result and showing that it is not due to generalization of preference levels from training. When the probe is between the two preferred training stimuli, the richer schedule is unpreferred. A SET account of these results is presented which implicates two processes in time allocation: (1) the choice between alternatives based on memory for delays to reinforcement, and (2) the times at which such choices are made. The former process is sensitive to reinforcement scheduling; the latter is sensitive to arousal levels induced by overall reinforcement rates in training.A now venerable tradition in operant schedule research shows that animals choosing between concurrently available variable schedules of reward allocate time spent at each alternative in proportion to their rates ofpayoff(the matching law; Herrnstein, 1970; see Williams, 1988, for a review). The matching law is ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. A form of matching is seen at the level of groups of animals distributing individuals across resource sites where it is known as the "ideal free distribution" (see Gallistel, 1990, for a review). At the level of individuals, where it has been studied extensively in the animal-learning literature, accounts of matching have engendered an enduring controversy about its source. Matching of behavior proportionate to payoff implies more choices for the less profitable resource than strictly necessary to maximize overall payoff rates. Several "molecular" or "quasi-molecular" accounts of matching, which posit maximizing payoffs at a local or molecular level, have been proposed. For example, meloriation (Herrnstein & Vaughan, 1980;Vaughan, 1985) and "momentary maximizing" (Shimp, 1969) argue that subjects choose the better of two local rates or probabilities of reinforcement, and this results in overall matching. Rather than explaining it, other, "molar" matching accounts simply assume matching (e.g., Baum & Rachlin, 1969; Gallistel, 1990;Mark & Gallistel, 1994).The author is grateful for extensive discussion of these ideas with C. R. Gallistel, who lent formative insights into an understanding of switching rates. Thanks are due S. Fairhurst for data collection and analysis. The work was supported by NIMH Grant MH41649-09. Address correspondence to John Gibbon, Biopsychology Unit 50, 722 W. I68th St.,...

show abstract

“…According to the pattern of responding acquired in training, however, 80% ofthe responses (and time) in the AB discrimination should have been to A, whereas 67% of the responses (and time) in the CD discrimination should have been to C. Thus, according to this analysis, the relative proportion of responses (and time) to A versus C would be predicted to be .544. The actual preference for A on the first test session (.746 for responses and.727 for time) was closer to that predicted by the schedules themselves (see also Williams, 1993;Williams & Royalty, 1989). Thus, responding on AC probe trials appeared to be unaffected by schedule interactions.…”

Section: Testmentioning

confidence: 73%

Value transfer in concurrent-schedule discriminations by pigeons

Zentall

Weaver

Sherburne

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When pigeons are trained on a discrete-trial simultaneous discrimination, some of the value associated with the positive stimulus appears to transfer to the negative stimulus (Zentall & Sherburne, 1994). Pigeons preferred a negative stimulus that had been discriminated from an always-positive stimulus (S +) over a negative stimulus that had been discriminated from a sometimes-positive stimulus (S~). A very different finding (suggestive of transitivity of preference or contrast) was reported by Belke (1992). On concurrent probe tests ofstimuli associated with equal variable interval (VI) schedules but originally trained in alternative concurrent pairs (one with a richer schedule, the other with a poorer schedule-VI 20 sec vs. VI 40 sec and VI 40 sec vs. VI 80 sec), the stimulus originally paired with the poorer schedule was preferred. But Belke's results may have been obtained because the pigeons had been trained to peck the VI 40 sec paired with the poorer schedule and they had been trained not to peck the VI 40 sec paired with the richer schedule. In the present experiment, we avoided this bias by training pigeons on two concurrent schedules in which the tested stimuli both had been associated with the poorer schedule of the pair [A(VI 20 sec) vs. B(VI 80 sec) and C(VI 40 sec) vs. D(VI 80 sec)J. Evidence for value transfer was demonstrated when on probe trials pigeons preferred B over D.

show abstract

A test of the melioration theory of matching.

Cited by 34 publications

References 38 publications

Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Preference and resistance to change in concurrent variable-interval schedules

Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse

Value transfer in concurrent-schedule discriminations by pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About