J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Jan;27(1):61-9. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-61.
Six pigeons were trained on two-key concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the required response was the completion of a fixed number of key pecks. When the required number of pecks was equal on the two keys, response- and time-allocation ratios under-matched obtained reinforcement rate ratios. A similar result was found when the required number of pecks was unequal, except that performance, measured in response terms, was biased to the shorter required number of pecks and was less sensitive to reinforcement-rate changes. No such differences were found in the data on time spent responding. When the variable-interval schedules were kept constant and the required numbers of pecks were systematically varied, response ratios changed inversely with the ratio of the required number of pecks, but time-allocation ratios varied directly with the same independent variable. Thus, on response measures, pigeons "prefer" the schedule with the smaller peck requirement, but on time measures they "prefer" the schedule with the larger peck requirement. This finding is inconsistent with a commonsense notion of choice, which sees response and time-allocation measures as equivalent.
六只鸽子在两个关键的同时变时距程序中接受训练,要求的反应是完成固定数量的啄键。当两个键上的要求啄键数相等时,反应和时间分配比率与获得的强化率比率不匹配。当要求的啄键数不相等时,也得到了类似的结果,只是以反应次数衡量的表现偏向于较短的要求啄键数,对强化率变化的敏感性较低。在响应时间数据中没有发现这种差异。当变时距程序保持不变,而要求的啄键数被系统地改变时,反应比率与要求啄键数的比率成反比变化,但时间分配比率与相同的独立变量成正比变化。因此,在反应度量上,鸽子“更喜欢”啄键要求较小的程序,但在时间度量上,它们“更喜欢”啄键要求较大的程序。这一发现与选择的常识观念不一致,常识观念认为反应和时间分配的衡量标准是等效的。