|
| EAB 2 |
| Monday, May 31, 2004 |
| 2:30 PM–3:20 PM |
| Commonwealth |
| Area: EAB |
| Chair: Michel Sokolowski (Universite de Picardie) |
| |
| Human (In)sensitivity to Changes in Schedules of Reinforcement |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| LEWIS A. BIZO (University of Southampton), Annie Taylor (University of Southampton) |
| |
| Abstract: Subjects were reinforced for responding on Fixed Ratio (FR)schedules of reinforcement at the start of an experimental session. Part way through the session the schedule was changed to a Fixed Interval (FI) schedule. The FI value was yoked to the mean inter-reinforcer interval (IRI) on the preceding FR component, and was either 0.5, 1, 2, 4, or 8 times the mean IRI during the FR component. In one condition subjects clicked on a mouse and were reinforced with points. In another condition the schedules were masked by a gambling simulation – subjects “played” a simulated fruit machine, and their “gambling” response were reinforced with virtual winnings. All participants received 5 pounds sterling compensation for their participation. The rate of responding did not reliably change following the transition from a FR to FI schedule. Rate of responding decreased systematically across the remainder of a session when the IRI was increased when the schedules of reinforcement were masked by a gambling simulation but did not decrease when the mask was absent. The importance of self generated hypotheses in determining sensitivity to schedule characteristics is discussed. |
| |
| Human Group Choice in Discrete Trial Procedures: Difference or Ratio Equalization? |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| MICHEL SOKOLOWSKI (Universite de Picardie), Lemaire Frederic (Universite de Picardie), Francois Tonneau (Universidade do Guadalajara) |
| |
| Abstract: According to the habitat-matching rule of the ideal free distribution, in discrete-trial group choice procedures with probabilistic rewards, the ratio of individuals in different patches should match resource ratios. However, we have shown that human subjects rather follow the difference-equalization rule: that is, the difference between the number of subjects in two patches matches the difference between resources in these patches. We propose an experimental test of these two competing rules. Across two successive replications, we show that human subjects can switch from one rule to the other depending on environmental parameters. |
| |
|
| |