J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Jan;53(1):123-32. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-123.
Four pigeons performed on three types of schedules at short (i.e., 10, 30, or 60 s) interreinforcement intervals: (a) a delay-dependent schedule where interreinforcement interval was held constant (i.e., increases in waiting time decreased food delay), (b) an interreinforcement-interval-dependent schedule where food delay was held constant (i.e., increases in waiting time increased interreinforcement interval), and (c) a both-dependent schedule where increases in waiting time produced increases in interreinforcement interval but decreases in food delay. Waiting times were typically longer under the delay-dependent schedules than under the interreinforcement-interval-dependent schedules. Those under both-dependent schedules for 1 subject were intermediate between those under the other two schedule types, whereas for the other subjects waiting times under the both-dependent procedure were similar either to those under the delay-dependent schedule or to those under the interreinforcement-interval-dependent schedule, depending both on the subject and the interreinforcement interval. These results indicate that neither the interreinforcement interval nor food delay is the primary variable controlling waiting time, but rather that the two interact in a complex manner to determine waiting times.
四只鸽子在三种短(即 10、30 或 60 秒)强化间隔的方案下进行操作:(a)一种依赖延迟的方案,其中强化间隔保持不变(即等待时间的增加减少了食物延迟),(b)一种强化间隔依赖的方案,其中食物延迟保持不变(即等待时间的增加增加了强化间隔),以及(c)一种两者都依赖的方案,其中等待时间的增加导致强化间隔增加但食物延迟减少。在依赖延迟的方案下,等待时间通常比强化间隔依赖的方案长。对于 1 个被试者,在两者都依赖的方案下的等待时间介于其他两种方案类型之间,而对于其他被试者,在两者都依赖的方案下的等待时间要么与依赖延迟的方案相似,要么与强化间隔依赖的方案相似,这取决于被试者和强化间隔。这些结果表明,既不是强化间隔也不是食物延迟是控制等待时间的主要变量,而是这两者以复杂的方式相互作用来决定等待时间。