Choice between concurrent schedules

Six pigeons pecked for food in a three-key experiment. A subject at any time could choose the left or right key and receive reinforcement according to one two-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule of reinforcement, or it could peck the center key. A peck on the center key arranged the complementary two-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule on the left and right keys. The two different two-key concurrent schedules arranged reinforcements concurrently and were signalled by two different colors of key lights. Choice behavior in the presence of a given color conformed to the usual relationship in two-key concurrent schedules: the relative frequency of responding on a key approximately equalled the relative frequency of reinforcement on that key. Preference for a two-key concurrent schedule, which was equivalent to preference for a color, was measured by the percentage of all responses on the left and right keys in the presence of that color: this percentage approximately equalled the percentage of all reinforcements that were delivered in the presence of that color. Thus, choice between concurrent schedules conforms approximately to the same relationship as does choice between alternatives in a single concurrent schedule

Local patterns of responding maintained by concurrent and multiple schedules

Local patterns of responding were studied when pigeons pecked for food in concurrent variable-interval schedules (Experiment I) and in multiple variable-interval schedules (Experiment II). In Experiment I, similarities in the distribution of interresponse times on the two keys provided further evidence that responding on concurrent schedules is determined more by allocation of time than by changes in local pattern of responding. Relative responding in local intervals since a preceding reinforcement showed consistent deviations from matching between relative responding and relative reinforcement in various postreinforcement intervals. Response rates in local intervals since a preceding changeover showed that rate of responding is not the same on both keys in all postchangeover intervals. The relative amount of time consumed by interchangeover times of a given duration approximately matched relative frequency of reinforced interchangeover times of that duration. However, computer simulation showed that this matching was probably a necessary artifact of concurrent schedules. In Experiment II, when component durations were 180 sec, the relationship between distribution of interresponse times and rate of reinforcement in the component showed that responding was determined by local pattern of responding in the components. Since responding on concurrent schedules appears to be determined by time allocation, this result would establish a behavioral difference between multiple and concurrent schedules. However, when component durations were 5 sec, local pattern of responding in a component (defined by interresponse times) was less important in determining responding than was amount of time spent responding in a component (defined by latencies). In fact, with 5-sec component durations, the relative amount of time spent responding in a component approximately matched relative frequency of reinforcement in the component. Thus, as component durations in multiple schedules decrease, multiple schedules become more like concurrent schedules, in the sense that responding is affected by allocation of time rather than by local pattern of responding