Abstract
Rats were trained on a discrete-trial version of a concurrent variable-interval (VI) variable-ratio (VR) schedule in which the relative reinforcement rates were varied across conditions. Subjects with the shorter intertrial interval (ITI) had a significant bias toward the VR alternative, as predicted by optimality theory, and were also more likely to choose the VI alternative with longer times since responses to the VI alternative, as predicted by momentary-maximizing theory. Subjects with the longer ITI failed to show either of these effects. Approximation to the matching law was greater with the longer ITI. Thus, matching is not derivative of the processes postulated by optimality or momentary-maximizing theory but instead is in competition with those processes.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
