| Abstract: | Rats were trained on a discrete-trial version of a concurrent validity VI VR schedule in which the relative reinforcement rates were varied across conditions. Ss 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. Ss 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
