Generalised matching Flashcards
Staddon (1968)
First to collect data that didnt fit the strict matching law. Studied concurrent VI (DRL) schedules. Short pause for B1, long pause for B2 (IRT).
Response data did not fit the strict matching law –> plotted data in log ratio form. Two deviations found
1) Undermatching
2) Bias
Miller, Saunders & Bouland (1980)
Ran a switching key concurrent VI VI with the alternatives signalled by line orientation. Left key –> never resulted in a reinforcer. Right key –> had a line orientation which defines B1 - which was reinforced at a certain rate.
When the pigeon pecked the changeover key –> caused a change in line orientation to B2. They found that when the two line orientations were more different, sensitivity was 1 - strict matching. When the two stimuli were similar, the sensitivity was lower. When they were the same, they still slightly changed their rate of responding - due to the win stay bias.
Traveet, Davison & Williams (1972)
Asked whether GML applied to concurrent FI VI as well as to VI VI, and whether there as a bias to FI or VI.
Control: Concurrent VI VI schedules in which reinforcer ratio was varied from 1:4 to 4:1.
Experimental: Concurrent FI VI schedule that varied reinforcer ratio over the same as control.
Results: sensitivities (slopes) were not very different. Concurrent VI VI = small bias towards key 2, whereas concurrent FI VI has a larger bias towards key 2.
–> Pigeons seem to prefer unpredictable reinforcers over predictable ones.
Schneirder & Todorov (1973)
Varied reinforcer magnitude - found that the concatenated GML equation fit their data. But sensitivity to magnitude was lower than sensitivity to reinforcement.
Hunter & Davison (1982)
Varied both the rate of reinforcement and how hard it was to peck the key.
Elliffe, Davison & Landon (2008)
Varied rate of reinforcement and magnitude of reinforcement. GML fit the data well but
1) Sensitivity to rate was highest when magnitude was equal
2) Sensitivity to magnitude was highest when rate was equal
