Reading focus
Syllabus: How Do Consequences Shape Action?
Compare response and reinforcement rates in the alternating ratio and interval components. Keep schedule requirements separate from rewards obtained.
Why you’re reading it. Show why equal reinforcement rates need not produce equal behavior, and why an observed rate should not automatically be read as preference.
A question to consider. Suppose the ratio component produces twice the responding at a comparable reward rate. Why would this not yet establish that the animal would choose it when both schedules are available together?
Why this reading
Counting rewards does not fully describe the conditions that sustain behavior. This comparison asks whether different response requirements produce different response rates even at similar rates of reinforcement.
Before you read
A variable-ratio schedule requires a varying number of responses; a variable-interval schedule makes reinforcement available for the first response after a varying interval. In a multiple schedule, signaled components alternate. This differs from concurrent schedules, where alternatives are available together. Response rate counts actions per unit time; reinforcement rate counts obtained consequences.
Read for
- Reconstruct the alternating red and green components and distinguish the programmed requirements from the reinforcements actually obtained.
- Compare the ratio and interval functions at equivalent relative reinforcement rates, including the individual animal that differs from the other three.
- Notice that changing reinforcement in one component also changes its relation to the other component; consider the resulting contrast in responding.
Consider afterwards
- Two arrangements deliver the same number of rewards per minute but produce different response rates. What additional information would you need before explaining the difference as greater motivation?
Editorial context
The experiment uses four pigeons with previous schedule experience. It establishes a comparison under this alternating-component procedure, not a universal numerical rule for human work or an explanation of every schedule effect. The paper itself distinguishes its results from matching under concurrent schedules. Higher response rate also does not, by itself, demonstrate greater preference, stronger learning, or greater resistance to change.