Abstract
Two experiments studied how added response requirements affected fixed-interval schedule performance. Experiment 1 involved tandem fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules, and Experiment 2 studied conjunctive fixed-interval fixed-ratio schedules. In both, pigeons' output, defined as overall response rate or as responses during the interval, first increased and then decreased as the ratio was raised. With small ratio requirements, the frequency of reinforcement in time either did not change or decreased slightly. With progressively larger ratios, reinforcement frequency decreased consistently. Alternative explanations were discussed. The first, a reinforcement theory account, was that response strength is an increasing monotonic function of both the response requirement and reinforcement frequency, and the bitonic output function represents interacting effects. Increases in the response requirement accompanied by small changes in reinforcement frequency enhance output, but further increases result in large enough decrements in reinforcement frequency so that output is lowered. The second explanation does not view reinforcement as a basic process but, instead, derives from concepts of economics and conservation. Organisms allocate their behavior among alternatives so as to maximize value, where value is a function of the responses that can occur in a given situation under the set of restrictions imposed by particular schedules. One form of this theory explicitly predicts that output is a bitonic function of ratio requirements in simple ratio schedules. However, it was not clear that this model could explain the present effects involving joint ratio and interval schedule restrictions.