Effects of reinforcer delays on choice as a function of income level

Three rats earned their daily food ration by responding during individual trials either on a lever that delivered one food pellet immediately or on a second lever that delivered three pellets after a delay that was continuously adjusted to ensure substantial responding to both alternatives. Choice of the delayed reinforcer increased when the number of trials per session was reduced. This result suggests that models seeking closure on choice effects must include a parameter reflecting how preference changes with sessionwide income. Moreover, models positing that reinforcer probability and immediacy (1/delay) function equivalently in choice are called into question by the finding that probability and immediacy produce opposing effects when income level is changed.     

Failure to find a distance effect in pigeon choice: Manipulating amount and delay of reinforcement

The choice behavior of primates, including humans, displays a distance effect: Latency to choose between alternatives appears to increase with smaller differences in value. There is, so far, no demonstration of this effect in birds. Tests of distance effects in birds have been conducted in binary choice situations with a dominant alternative, where one alternative is superior to the other in all aspects that meaningfully contribute to value (e.g., provides access to the same reinforcer, but with a shorter delay). The present study considers the possibility that including dominant alternatives in choice tests precludes distance effects. Four pigeons were presented with binary choices between alternatives that varied in amount and delay. Some choices had a dominant alternative (smaller–sooner or larger–later vs. smaller–later) and some did not (smaller–sooner vs. larger–later). Across phases, only the delay to the smaller–sooner reinforcer varied. Distance effects were expected to be expressed as longer latencies as choice between smaller–sooner and larger–later reinforcers approached indifference. Despite the sensitivity of choice to differences in amount and delay, no distance effect was observed. Alternative explanations for the failure to find a distance effect in pigeon choice, including the Sequential Choice Model (SCM), are discussed.     

Theories of probabilistic reinforcement.

In three experiments, pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck at a red key led to a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. A peck at a green key led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In Experiments 1 and 2, the intertrial interval was varied across conditions, and these variations had no systematic effects on choice. In Experiment 3, the stimuli that followed a choice of the red key differed across conditions. In some conditions, a red houselight was presented for 5 s after each choice of the red key. In other conditions, the red houselight was present on reinforced trials but not on nonreinforced trials. Subjects exhibited greater preference for the red key in the latter case. The results were used to evaluate four different theories of probabilistic reinforcement. The results were most consistent with the view that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is determined by the total time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. According to this view, probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers that are delivered after variable delays.     

Effects of intertrial reinforcers on self-control choice.

In three experiments, pigeons chose between a small amount of food delivered after a short delay and a larger amount delivered after a longer delay. A discrete-trial adjusting-delay procedure was used to estimate indifference points--pairs of delay-amount combinations that were chosen about equally often. In Experiment 1, when additional reinforcers were available during intertrial intervals on a variable-interval schedule, preference for the smaller, more immediate reinforcer increased. Experiment 2 found that this shift in preference occurred partly because the variable-interval schedule started sooner after the smaller, more immediate reinforcer, but there was still a small shift in preference when the durations and temporal locations of the variable-interval schedules were identical for both alternatives. Experiment 3 found greater increases in preference for the smaller, more immediate reinforcer with a variable-interval 15-s schedule than with a variable-interval 90-s schedule. The results were generally consistent with a model that states that the impact of any event that follows a choice response declines according to a hyperbolic function with increasing time since the moment of choice.     

Enhancing tolerance to delayed reinforcers: the role of intervening activities

Three participants with moderate to profound mental retardation were exposed to choices between an immediate small amount and a delayed larger amount of a preferred reinforcer. All participants initially showed a relatively high preference for the smaller reinforcer, suggesting impulsive choice making. However this preference reversed, suggesting self-control, when the larger reinforcer was available immediately and, over time, its delay was gradually increased. Results highlight the potential utility of incorporating concurrent activities into self-control training paradigms.     

Choice among two and three alternatives

Although choice between two alternatives has been widely researched, fewer studies have examined choice across multiple (more than two) alternatives. Past models of choice behavior predict that the number of alternatives should not affect relative response allocation, but more recent research has found violations of this principle. Five pigeons were presented with three concurrently scheduled alternatives. Relative reinforcement rates across these alternatives were assigned 9:3:1. In some conditions three keys were available; in others, only two keys were available. The number of available alternatives did not affect relative response rates for pairs of alternatives; there were no significant differences in behavior between the two and three key conditions. For two birds in the three‐alternative conditions and three birds in the two‐alternative conditions, preference was more extreme for the pair of alternatives with the lower overall pairwise reinforcer rate (3:1) than the pair with higher overall reinforcer rate (9:3). However, when responding during the changeover was removed three birds showed the opposite pattern in the three‐alternative conditions; preference was more extreme for the pair of alternatives with the higher overall reinforcer rate. These findings differ from past research and do not support established theories of choice behavior.     

RISKY CHOICE IN PIGEONS AND HUMANS: A CROSS‐SPECIES COMPARISON

Pigeon and human subjects were given repeated choices between variable and adjusting delays to token reinforcement that titrated in relation to a subject's recent choice patterns. Indifference curves were generated under two different procedures: immediate exchange, in which a token earned during each trial was exchanged immediately for access to the terminal reinforcer (food for pigeons, video clips for humans), and delayed exchange, in which tokens accumulated and were exchanged after 11 trials. The former was designed as an analogue of procedures typically used with nonhuman subjects, the latter as an analogue to procedures typically used with human participants. Under both procedure types, different variable‐delay schedules were manipulated systematically across conditions in ways that altered the reinforcer immediacy of the risky option. Under immediate‐exchange conditions, both humans and pigeons consistently preferred the variable delay, and indifference points were generally ordered in relation to relative reinforcer immediacies. Such risk sensitivity was greatly reduced under delayed‐exchange conditions. Choice and trial‐initiation response latencies varied directly with indifference points, suggesting that local analyses may provide useful ancillary measures of reinforcer value. On the whole, the results indicate that modifying procedural features brings choices of pigeons and humans into better accord, and that human—nonhuman differences on risky choice procedures reported in the literature may be at least partly a product of procedural differences.     

Self-Control and Impulsiveness in Adult Human Females: Effects of Food Preferences

Two experiments explored the effects of food preferences on humans’ choice in a self-control paradigm. Reinforcers consisted of programmed periods of access time to drinking juice during the experimental session. Experiment 1 used 14 adult women and Experiment 2 used 9 adult women. In Experiment 1, the women demonstrated significantly less sensitivity to reinforcer amount relative to sensitivity to reinforcer delay (a measure of self-control) when they reported a higher preference for the juice received as the less delayed, smaller reinforcer than for the juice received as the more delayed, larger reinforcer. Conversely in Experiment 2, the women demonstrated significantly more sensitivity to reinforcer amount relative to sensitivity to reinforcer delay when they reported a higher preference for the juice received as the more delayed, larger reinforcer than for the juice received as the less delayed, smaller reinforcer. Together, the results show that participants’ food preferences can influence self-control for food reinforcers.     

Local effects of delayed food

Five pigeons were trained on a procedure in which seven concurrent variable-interval schedules arranged seven different food-rate ratios in random sequence in each session. Each of these components lasted for 10 response-produced food deliveries, and components were separated by 10-s blackouts. We varied delays to food (signaled by blackout) between the two response alternatives in an experiment with three phases: In Phase 1, the delay on one alternative was 0 s, and the other was varied between 0 and 8 s; in Phase 2, both delays were equal and were varied from 0 to 4 s; in Phase 3, the two delays summed to 8 s, and each was varied from 1 to 7 s. The results showed that increasing delay affected local choice, measured by a pulse in preference, in the same way as decreasing magnitude, but we found also that increasing the delay at the other alternative increased local preference. This result casts doubt on the traditional view that a reinforcer strengthens a response depending only on the reinforcer's value discounted by any response-reinforcer delay. The results suggest that food guides, rather than strengthens, behavior.     

Preference reversals with food and water reinforcers in rats

Rats were given a choice between a smaller, immediately available reward and a larger reward available after a delay. In one phase, the reward was food and in another phase, the reward was water. Constant delays were added between the choice presentation and the delivery of the reward alternatives. As the time between choice and reward delivery increased from 0 to 25 s, all rats (except one in the water phase) reversed their preference from the smaller, sooner alternative to the larger, later alternative. These findings extend the generality of the preference-reversal animal model to qualitatively different reinforcers. Furthermore, the presence of both impulsive and self-control choices within the same animal is consistent with the view that self-control may be understood as choice behavior, and that species differences in self-control may be differences in degree, not kind.     

DELAY‐AMOUNT TRADEOFFS IN CHOICES BY PIGEONS AND RATS: HYPERBOLIC VERSUS EXPONENTIAL DISCOUNTING

An adjusting‐delay procedure was used to study the choices of pigeons and rats when both delay and amount of reinforcement were varied. In different conditions, the choice alternatives included one versus two reinforcers, one versus three reinforcers, and three versus two reinforcers. The delay to one alternative (the standard alternative) was kept constant in a condition, and the delay to the other (the adjusting alternative) was increased or decreased many times a session so as to estimate an indifference point—a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Indifference functions were constructed by plotting the adjusting delay as a function of the standard delay for each pair of reinforcer amounts. The experiments were designed to test the prediction of a hyperbolic decay equation that the slopes of the indifference functions should increase as the ratio of the two reinforcer amounts increased. Consistent with the hyperbolic equation, the slopes of the indifference functions depended on the ratios of the two reinforcer amounts for both pigeons and rats. These results were not compatible with an exponential decay equation, which predicts slopes of 1 regardless of the reinforcer amounts. Combined with other data, these findings provide further evidence that delay discounting is well described by a hyperbolic equation for both species, but not by an exponential equation. Quantitative differences in the y‐intercepts of the indifference functions from the two species suggested that the rate at which reinforcer strength decreases with increasing delay may be four or five times slower for rats than for pigeons.     

Choice between single and multiple delayed reinforcers.

Pigeons chose between alternatives that differed in the number of reinforcers and in the delay to each reinforcer. A peck on a red key produced the same consequences on every trial within a condition, but between conditions the number of reinforcers varied from one to three and the reinforcer delays varied between 5 s and 30 s. A peck on a green key produced a delay of adjustable duration and then a single reinforcer. The green-key delay was increased or decreased many times per session, depending on a subject's previous choices, which permitted estimation of an indifference point, or a delay at which a subject chose each alternative about equally often. The indifference points decreased systematically with more red-key reinforcers and with shorter red-key delays. The results did not support the suggestion of Moore (1979) that multiple delayed reinforcers have no effect on preference unless they are closely grouped. The results were well described in quantitative detail by a simple model stating that each of a series of reinforcers increases preference, but that a reinforcer's effect is inversely related to its delay. The success of this model, which considers only delay of reinforcement, suggested that the overall rate of reinforcement for each alternative had no effect on choice between those alternatives.     

Self-control in male and female rats

Eight male and 8 female Wistar rats were exposed to a discrete-trial procedure in which they chose between the presentation of a small (one pellet) or a large (three pellets) reinforcer. The delay to the small and large reinforcer was 6.0 s in the first condition of Experiment 1. Subjects consistently chose the large reinforcer. When the delay to the small reinforcer was decreased to 0.1 s in the next experimental condition, all subjects continued to choose the large 6.0-s delayed reinforcer. When the contingencies correlated with the two levers were reversed in the next experimental condition, the majority of subjects (5 males and 6 females) still chose the large delayed reinforcer over the small immediately presented reinforcer. The delay to the small reinforcer was maintained at 6.0 s, but the delay to the large reinforcer was varied among 9.0, 15.0, 24.0, and 36.0 s in Experiment 2, in which 4 males and 4 females participated. Most subjects consistently chose the large increasingly delayed reinforcer, although choice for the small 6.0-s delayed reinforcer developed in some females when the large reinforcer was delayed for 24.0 or 36.0 s. These choice patterns were not predicted from a literal application of a model that says choice should favor the alternative correlated with the higher (amount/delay) ratio.     

Effects of time between trials on rats' and pigeons' choices with probabilistic delayed reinforcers

Parallel experiments with rats and pigeons examined reasons for previous findings that in choices with probabilistic delayed reinforcers, rats' choices were affected by the time between trials whereas pigeons' choices were not. In both experiments, the animals chose between a standard alternative and an adjusting alternative. A choice of the standard alternative led to a short delay (1 s or 3 s), and then food might or might not be delivered. If food was not delivered, there was an "interlink interval," and then the animal was forced to continue to select the standard alternative until food was delivered. A choice of the adjusting alternative always led to food after a delay that was systematically increased and decreased over trials to estimate an indifference point--a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Under these conditions, the indifference points for both rats and pigeons increased as the interlink interval increased from 0 s to 20 s, indicating decreased preference for the probabilistic reinforcer with longer time between trials. The indifference points from both rats and pigeons were well described by the hyperbolic-decay model. In the last phase of each experiment, the animals were not forced to continue selecting the standard alternative if food was not delivered. Under these conditions, rats' choices were affected by the time between trials whereas pigeons' choices were not, replicating results of previous studies. The differences between the behavior of rats and pigeons appears to be the result of procedural details, not a fundamental difference in how these two species make choices with probabilistic delayed reinforcers.     

Relative sensitivity to reinforcer amount and delay in a self-control choice situation.

Rats were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules in which a single variable-interval schedule arranged entry into one of two terminal-link delay periods (fixed-interval schedules). The shorter delay ended with the delivery of a single food pellet; the longer day ended with a larger number of food pellets (two under some conditions and six under others). In Experiment 1, the terminal-link delays were selected so that under all conditions the ratio of delays would exactly equal the ratio of the number of pellets. But the absolute duration of the delays differed across conditions. In one condition, for example, rats chose between one pellet delayed 5 s and six pellets delayed 30 s; in another condition rats chose between one pellet delayed 10 s and six pellets delayed 60 s. The generalized matching law predicts indifference between the two alternatives, assuming that the sensitivity parameters for amount and delay of reinforcement are equal. The rats' choices were, in fact, close to indifference except when the choice was between one pellet delayed 5 s and six pellets delayed 30 s. That deviation from indifference suggests that the sensitivities to amount and delay differ from each other depending on the durations of the delays. In Experiment 2, rats chose between one pellet following a 5-s delay and six pellets following a delay that was systematically increased over sessions to find a point of indifference. Indifference was achieved when the delay to the six pellets was approximately 55 s. These results are consistent with the possibility that the relative sensitivities to amount and delay differ as a function of the delays.     

Exchange delays and impulsive choice in adult humans.

Choice responding by adult humans in a discrete-trial task was examined as a function of conditions that manipulated either the delay to point delivery or the delay between points and their exchange for money. In point-delay conditions, subjects chose between an "impulsive" alternative that provided a small amount of points immediately and a "self-control" alternative that provided a larger amount of points delayed by 15, 30, or 60 s. Points were exchanged for money immediately following the session. Subjects preferred the self-control alternative. In exchange-delay conditions, subjects chose between a small amount of points exchangeable for money immediately following the session and a larger amount of points exchangeable for money after 1 day, 3 weeks, or 6 weeks. A self-control preference observed for all subjects in the 1-day exchange-delay condition reversed to exclusive impulsive preference for 4 of the 6 subjects when choice conditions involved exchange delays of 3 or 6 weeks. These results show that human choice is sensitive to the manipulation of exchange delays and that impulsive preference can be obtained with exchange delays on the order of weeks.     

Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers.

In a discrete-trials procedure with pigeons, a response on a green key led to a 4-s delay (during which green houselights were lit) and then a reinforcer might or might not be delivered. A response on a red key led to a delay of adjustable duration (during which red houselights were lit) and then a certain reinforcer. The delay was adjusted so as to estimate an indifference point--a duration for which the two alternatives were equally preferred. Once the green key was chosen, a subject had to continue to respond on the green key until a reinforcer was delivered. Each response on the green key, plus the 4-s delay that followed every response, was called one "link" of the green-key schedule. Subjects showed much greater preference for the green key when the number of links before reinforcement was variable (averaging four) than when it was fixed (always exactly four). These findings are consistent with the view that probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers delivered after variable delays. When successive links were separated by 4-s or 8-s "interlink intervals" with white houselights, preference for the probabilistic alternative decreased somewhat for 2 subjects but was unaffected for the other 2 subjects. When the interlink intervals had the same green houselights that were present during the 4-s delays, preference for the green key decreased substantially for all subjects. These results provided mixed support for the view that preference for a probabilistic reinforcer is inversely related to the duration of conditioned reinforcers that precede the delivery of food.     

STEADY-STATE ASSESSMENT OF IMPULSIVE CHOICE IN LEWIS AND FISCHER 344 RATS: BETWEEN-CONDITION DELAY MANIPULATIONS

Previous research has shown that Lewis rats make more impulsive choices than Fischer 344 rats. Such strain-related differences in choice are important as they may provide an avenue for exploring genetic and neurochemical contributions to impulsive choice. The present systematic replication was designed to determine if these findings could be reproduced using a procedure less susceptible to within- or between-session carry-over effects that may have affected previous findings. Specifically, delays to the larger–later food reinforcer were manipulated between conditions following steady-state assessments of choice, and the order of delays across conditions was mixed. The results confirmed previous findings that Lewis rats made significantly more impulsive choices than Fischer 344 rats. Fischer 344 rats' preference for the larger–later reinforcer, on the other hand, was less extreme than reported in prior research, which may be due to carry-over effects inherent to the commonly used technique of systematically increasing delays within session. Previously reported across-strain motor differences were reproduced as Lewis rats had shorter latencies than Fischer 344 rats, although these latencies were not correlated with impulsive choice. Parallels between reduced dopamine function in Lewis rats and clinical reports of impulse-control disorders following treatment of Parkinson patients with selective D2/D3 dopamine agonists are discussed.     

Effects of reinforcer probability, delay, and response requirements on the choices of rats and pigeons: possible species differences

In Experiment 1 with rats, a left lever press led to a 5-s delay and then a possible reinforcer. A right lever press led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials to estimate an indifference point, or a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Indifference points increased as the probability of reinforcement for the left lever decreased. In some conditions with a 20% chance of food, a light above the left lever was lit during the 5-s delay on all trials, but in other conditions, the light was only lit on those trials that ended with food. Unlike previous results with pigeons, the presence or absence of the delay light on no-food trials had no effect on the rats' indifference points. In other conditions, the rats showed less preference for the 20% alternative when the time between trials was longer. In Experiment 2 with rats, fixed-interval schedules were used instead of simple delays, and the presence or absence of the fixed-interval requirement on no-food trials had no effect on the indifference points. In Experiment 3 with rats and Experiment 4 with pigeons, the animals chose between a fixed-ratio 8 schedule that led to food on 33% of the trials and an adjusting-ratio schedule with food on 100% of the trials. Surprisingly, the rats showed less preference for the 33% alternative in conditions in which the ratio requirement was omitted on no-food trials. For the pigeons, the presence or absence of the ratio requirement on no-food trials had little effect. The results suggest that there may be differences between rats and pigeons in how they respond in choice situations involving delayed and probabilistic reinforcers.     

Commitment using punishment.

Experimental parameters were adjusted so that pigeons' pairwise choices among three alternatives reflected the following order of preference: (a) a smaller-sooner reinforcer, (b) a larger-later reinforcer, and (c) the smaller-sooner reinforcer followed by a punishment (consisting of an extended blackout period). After this order of preference was established, the pigeons were exposed to a two-link, concurrent-chain-like choice procedure. One terminal link consisted of a choice between the smaller-sooner and the larger-later reinforcer; the other terminal link was identical to the first except that the smaller-sooner reinforcer was followed by blackout punishment. The pigeons' preference (in their initial-link choice) for the terminal link with the punished smaller-sooner alternative increased as the delay between the initial and terminal links increased. By choosing this terminal link, the pigeons are said to have "committed" themselves to obtaining the larger-later reinforcer. However, unlike prior studies of commitment (e.g., Rachlin & Green, 1972), it was still possible after making the commitment for the pigeons to choose the smaller-sooner reinforcer and undergo the punishment. The pigeons did in fact occasionally make this highly deleterious choice.