• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of jeabehavJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web SiteSubscriber LoginJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis Web SiteSubscription InformationInformation for AuthorsJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web Site
J Exp Anal Behav. Jul 2000; 74(1): 1–24.
PMCID: PMC1284782

Choice in a variable environment: every reinforcer counts.


Six pigeons were trained in sessions composed of seven components, each arranged with a different concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratio. These components occurred in an irregular order with equal frequency, separated by 10-s blackouts. No signals differentiated the different reinforcer ratios. Conditions lasted 50 sessions, and data were collected from the last 35 sessions. In Part 1, the arranged overall reinforcer rate was 2.22 reinforcers per minute. Over conditions, number of reinforcers per component was varied from 4 to 12. In Part 2, the overall reinforcer rate was six per minute, with both 4 and 12 reinforcers per component. Within components, log response-allocation ratios adjusted rapidly as more reinforcers were delivered in the component, and the slope of the choice relation (sensitivity) leveled off at moderately high levels after only about eight reinforcers. When the carryover from previous components was taken into account, the number of reinforcers in the components appeared to have no systematic effect on the speed at which behavior changed after a component started. Consequently, sensitivity values at each reinforcer delivery were superimposable. However, adjustment to changing reinforcer ratios was faster, and reached greater sensitivity values, when overall reinforcer rate was higher. Within a component, each successive reinforcer from the same alternative ("confirming") had a smaller effect than the one before, but single reinforcers from the other alternative ("disconfirming") always had a large effect. Choice in the prior component carried over into the next component, and its effects could be discerned even after five or six reinforcement and nonreinforcement is suggested.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (421K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Alsop B, Elliffe D. Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jan;49(1):21–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Bailey JT, Mazur JE. Choice behavior in transition: development of preference for the higher probability of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 May;53(3):409–422. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Baum WM. On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):231–242. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Baum WM. Matching, undermatching, and overmatching in studies of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):269–281. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Baum W, Schwendiman J, Bell K. Choice, contingency discrimination, and foraging theory. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):355–373. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Belke TW, Heyman GM. Increasing and signaling background reinforcement: effect on the foreground response-reinforcer relation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jan;61(1):65–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Davis DG, Staddon JE, Machado A, Palmer RG. The process of recurrent choice. Psychol Rev. 1993 Apr;100(2):320–341. [PubMed]
  • Davison MC, Hunter IW. Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):233–244. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Davison M, Jones BM. A quantitative analysis of extreme choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Sep;64(2):147–162. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Davison M, Jones B. Performance On Concurrent Variable-interval Extinction Schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Jan;69(1):49–57. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Davison M, Nevin J. Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: an integration. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 May;71(3):439–482. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Elliffe D, Alsop B. Concurrent choice: Effects of overall reinforcer rate and the temporal distribution of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Mar;65(2):445–463. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • HERRNSTEIN RJ. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Herrnstein RJ. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Hunter I, Davison M. Determination of a behavioral transfer function: White-noise analysis of session-to-session response-ratio dynamics on concurrent VI VI schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Jan;43(1):43–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Killeen PR. Stability criteria. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jan;29(1):17–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lobb B, Davison MC. Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Sep;24(2):191–197. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mazur JE. Choice behavior in transition: development of preference with ratio and interval schedules. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1992 Oct;18(4):364–378. [PubMed]
  • Schofield G, Davison M. Nonstable concurrent choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1997 Sep;68(2):219–232. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Taylor R, Davison M. Sensitivity to reinforcement in concurrent arithmetic and exponential schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jan;39(1):191–198. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


  • PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...