Molar optimization versus delayed reinforcement as explanations of choice between fixed-ratio and progressive-ratio schedules.

Abstract

In a discrete-trials procedure, pigeons chose between a fixed-ratio 81 schedule and a progressive-ratio schedule by making a single peck at the key correlated with one or the other of these schedules. The response requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule began at 1 and increased by 10 each time the progressive-ratio schedule was chosen. Each time the fixed-ratio schedule was chosen, the requirement on the progressive-ratio schedule was reset to 1 response. In conditions where there was no intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about five consecutive trials (during which the response requirement increased to 41), and then chose the fixed-ratio schedule. This ratio was larger than that predicted by an optimality analysis that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that minimizes the response-reinforcer ratio or one that assumes that subjects respond in a pattern that maximizes the overall rate of reinforcement. In conditions with a 25-s or 50-s intertrial interval, subjects chose the progressive-ratio schedule for an average of about eight consecutive trials before choosing the fixed-ratio schedule. This change in performance with the addition of an intertrial interval was also not predicted by an optimality analysis. On the other hand, the results were consistent with the theory that choice is determined by the delays to the reinforcers delivered on the present trial and on subsequent trials.