Abstract
The Law of Effect dictates that animals will repeat the just-reinforced response “win-stay”, and yet there have been apparent violations of this by rats running for food in mazes, in the form of “win-shift” behaviour. Four experiments analysed the conditions determining win-stay and win-shift behaviour. All the experiments employed a schedule in which reinforcement was distributed across two choices, and in which the probability of reinforcement for the first response after previous reinforcement was equivalent for the two options. Despite this lack of programmed differential reinforcement, rats showed a significant win-stay tendency in Experiment 1, with no spatial bias. Experiments 2 and 3 used respectively a Y-maze and an operant chamber in which responding required a return to a central choice point. In both situations, significant win-shift behaviour resulted initially, at relatively high frequencies of reinforcement, but this win-shift changed to significant win-stay over many sessions, and with intermittent reinforcement. Experiment 4 introduced explicitly non-reinforced trials and demonstrated a “lose-shift” tendency, parallel to win-stay. Possible artefacts underlying win-stay and win-shift behaviour are rejected, and various mechanisms for these effects, including theories of optimal choice and associative learning, are discussed.
