Sensitivity to reinforcer duration in a self-control procedure

In a concurrent-chains procedure, pigeons' responses on left and right keys were followed by reinforcers of different durations at different delays following the choice responses. Three pairs of reinforcer delays were arranged in each session, and reinforcer durations were varied over conditions. In Experiment 1 reinforcer delays were unequal, and in Experiment 2 reinforcer delays were equal. In Experiment 1 preference reversal was demonstrated in that an immediate short reinforcer was chosen more frequently than a longer reinforcer delayed 6 s from the choice, whereas the longer reinforcer was chosen more frequently when delays to both reinforcers were lengthened. In both experiments, choice responding was more sensitive to variations in reinforcer duration at overall longer reinforcer delays than at overall shorter reinforcer delays, independently of whether fixed-interval or variable-interval schedules were arranged in the choice phase. We concluded that preference reversal results from a change in sensitivity of choice responding to ratios of reinforcer duration as the delays to both reinforcers are lengthened.     

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.     

Self-control in adult humans: variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay.

In five experiments, choice responding of female human adults was examined, as a function of variations in reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay. Experiment 1 used a discrete-trials procedure, and Experiments 2, 3, 4, and 5 used a concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedule. Reinforcer amount and reinforcer delay were varied both separately and together. In contrast to results previously reported with pigeons, the subjects in the present experiments usually chose the larger reinforcers even when those reinforcers were delayed. Together, the results from all the experiments suggest that the subjects followed a maximization strategy in choosing reinforcers. Such behavior makes it easy to observe self-control and difficult to observe impulsiveness in traditional laboratory experiments that use adult human subjects.     

Independence of reinforcement delay and magnitude in concurrent chains

A three-component concurrent-chains procedure was used to investigate preference between terminal-link schedules that differed in delay and magnitude of reinforcement. Response and time allocation data were well described by a generalized matching model. Sensitivity to delay appeared to be lower when reinforcement magnitudes were unequal than when they were equal, but when obtained rather than programmed time spent responding in the initial links was used in the model, the difference vanished. The results support independence of delay and magnitude as separate dimensions of reinforcement value, as required by the matching law, and the assumption of the contextual choice model (Grace, 1994) that sensitivities to delay and magnitude are affected similarly by temporal context. Although there was statistical evidence for interaction between successive components, the effects were small and transient. The multiple-component concurrent-chains procedure should prove useful in future research on multidimensional preference, although it may be necessary to control obtained initial-link time more precisely.     

Concurrent schedules: reinforcer magnitude effects

Five pigeons were trained on pairs of concurrent variable-interval schedules in a switching-key procedure. The arranged overall rate of reinforcement was constant in all conditions, and the reinforcer-magnitude ratios obtained from the two alternatives were varied over five levels. Each condition remained in effect for 65 sessions and the last 50 sessions of data from each condition were analyzed. At a molar level of analysis, preference was described well by a version of the generalized matching law, consistent with previous reports. More local analyses showed that recently obtained reinforcers had small measurable effects on current preference, with the most recently obtained reinforcer having a substantially larger effect. Larger reinforcers resulted in larger and longer preference pulses, and a small preference was maintained for the larger-magnitude alternative even after long inter-reinforcer intervals. These results are consistent with the notion that the variables controlling choice have both short- and long-term effects. Moreover, they suggest that control by reinforcer magnitude is exerted in a manner similar to control by reinforcer frequency. Lower sensitivities when reinforcer magnitude is varied are likely to be due to equal frequencies of different sized preference pulses, whereas higher sensitivities when reinforcer rates are varied might result from changes in the frequencies of different sized preference pulses.     

Relative reinforcer rates and magnitudes do not control concurrent choice independently

One assumption of the matching approach to choice is that different independent variables control choice independently of each other. We tested this assumption for reinforcer rate and magnitude in an extensive parametric experiment. Five pigeons responded for food reinforcement on switching-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Across conditions, the ratios of reinforcer rates and of reinforcer magnitudes on the two alternatives were both manipulated. Control by each independent variable, as measured by generalized-matching sensitivity, changed significantly with the ratio of the other independent variable. Analyses taking the model-comparison approach, which weighs improvement in goodness-of-fit against increasing number of free parameters, were inconclusive. These analyses compared a model assuming constant sensitivity to magnitude across all reinforcer-rate ratios with two alternative models. One of those alternatives allowed sensitivity to magnitude to vary freely across reinforcer-rate ratios, and was less efficient than the common-sensitivity model for all pigeons, according to the Schwarz-Bayes information criterion. The second alternative model constrained sensitivity to magnitude to be equal for pairs of reinforcer-rate ratios that deviated from unity by proportionately equal amounts but in opposite directions. This model was more efficient than the common-magnitude-sensitivity model for 2 of the pigeons, but not for the other 3. An analysis of variance, carried out independently of the generalized-matching analysis, also showed a significant interaction between the effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice. On balance, these results suggest that the assumption of independence inherent in the matching approach cannot be maintained. Relative reinforcer rates and magnitudes do not control choice independently.     

Concurrent schedules: Interaction of reinforcer frequency and reinforcer duration

Six pigeons were trained on concurrent variable-interval schedules with unequal reinforcer durations for the two responses. The schedules arranged on the two keys were kept equal while they were varied in absolute size. As the overall reinforcer rate was increased, both response-allocation and time-allocation measures of choice showed a trend toward indifference, and measures of sensitivity to reinforcer-duration ratios significantly decreased. Recent reports have shown that the generalized matching law cannot describe the changes in behavior allocation under constant delay-, duration-, or rate-ratios when changes are made in the absolute levels of each of these variables. The present results complement these findings by demonstrating that the concatenated generalized matching law cannot describe the interactions of two reinforcer variables on behavior allocation.     

Choice in a variable environment: effects of unequal reinforcer distributions

Six pigeons were trained in a procedure in which sessions included seven unsignaled components, each offering two pecking keys, and each providing a potentially different reinforcer ratio between the two keys. Across conditions, various combinations of reinforcer ratios and reinforcer-magnitude ratios were used to create unequal reinforcer distributions between the two alternatives when averaged across a session. The results extended previous research using the same basic procedure that had included only reinforcer distributions symmetrical around 1:1. Data analyses suggested that the variables controlling choice operated at a number of levels: First, individual reinforcers had local effects on choice; second, sequences of successive reinforcers obtained at the same alternative (continuations) had cumulative effects; and, third, when these sequences themselves occurred with greater frequency, their effects further cumulated. A reinforcer obtained at the other alternative following a sequence of continuations (a discontinuation) had a large effect and apparently reset choice to levels approximating the sessional reinforcer ratio.     

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.     

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.     

Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons.

Pigeons were exposed to self-control procedures that involved illumination of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a form of token reinforcement. In a discrete-trials arrangement, subjects chose between one and three LEDs; each LED was exchangeable for 2-s access to food during distinct posttrial exchange periods. In Experiment 1, subjects generally preferred the immediate presentation of a single LED over the delayed presentation of three LEDs, but differences in the delay to the exchange period between the two options prevented a clear assessment of the relative influence of LED delay and exchange-period delay as determinants of choice. In Experiment 2, in which delays to the exchange period from either alternative were equal in most conditions, all subjects preferred the delayed three LEDs more often than in Experiment-1. In Experiment 3, subjects preferred the option that resulted in a greater amount of food more often if the choices also produced LEDs than if they did not. In Experiment 4, preference for the delayed three LEDs was obtained when delays to the exchange period were equal, but reversed in favor of an immediate single LED when the latter choice also resulted in quicker access to exchange periods. The overall pattern of results suggests that (a) delay to the exchange period is a more critical determinant of choice than is delay to token presentation; (b) tokens may function as conditioned reinforcers, although their discriminative properties may be responsible for the self-control that occurs under token reinforcer arrangements; and (c) previously reported differences in the self-control choices of humans and pigeons may have resulted at least in part from the procedural conventions of using token reinforcers with human subjects and food reinforcers with pigeon subjects.     

Discrete-trial choice in pigeons: Effects of reinforcer magnitude

The preference of pigeons for large reinforcers which occasionally followed a response versus small reinforcers which invariably followed a response was studied in a discrete-trial situation. Two differently colored keys were associated with the two reinforcement alternatives, and preference was measured as the proportion of choice trials on which the key associated with uncertain reinforcement was pecked. A combination of choice and guidance trials insured that received distributions of reinforcement equalled the scheduled distributions. For five of six subjects, preference for the uncertain reinforcer appeared to be a linear function of the magnitude of the certain reinforcer. In addition, there was greater preference for the response alternative associated with uncertain reinforcement than would be expected on the basis of net reinforcer value.     

Choice and delay of reinforcement: Effects of terminal-link stimulus and response conditions

In two experiments, pigeons were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules in which a single initial-link variable-interval schedule led to access to terminal links composed of fixed-interval or fixed-delay schedules. In Experiment 1, an 8-s (or 16-s) delay to reinforcement was associated with the standard key, while reinforcer delay values associated with the experimental key were varied from 4 to 32 s. The results of Experiment 1 showed undermatching of response ratios to delay ratios with terminal-link fixed-delay schedules, whereas in some pigeons matching or overmatching was evident with the fixed-interval schedules. In Experiment 2, one pair of reinforcer delay values, either 8 versus 16 s or 16 versus 32 s, was used. In the first condition of Experiment 2, different delays were associated with different keylight stimuli (cued condition). In the second condition, different terminal-link delays were associated with the same stimulus, either a blackout (uncued-blackout condition) or a white key (uncued-white condition). To examine the role of responses emitted during delays, the keys were retracted during a delay (key-absent condition) in the third condition and responses were required by a fixed-interval schedule in the fourth condition. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the choice proportions for the shorter delay were more extreme in the cued condition than in the uncued-blackout condition, and that the response requirement imposed by the fixed-interval schedules did not affect choice of the shorter delay, nor did the key-absent and key-present conditions. These results indicate that the keylight-stimulus conditions affected preference for the shorter of two delays and that the findings obtained in Experiment 1 depended mainly on the keylight-stimulus conditions of the terminal links (i.e., the conditioned reinforcing value of the terminal-link stimuli).     

Choice between rewards differing in amount and delay: Toward a choice model of self control

A concurrent-chain procedure was used to study pigeons' choices between rewards differing in both amount and delay. The shorter delay terminated with a 2-second access to grain whereas the longer delay terminated with a 6-second access to grain. The ratio of the delays was constant within a given condition while their absolute values were varied. Over conditions, ratios of 6:1, 3:1, and 3:2 were studied. As the absolute values of the delays to reinforcement increased, preference for the longer-delayed but larger reward decreased under both the 6:1 and 3:1 ratios, but increased under the 3:2 ratio. These results are inconsistent with choice models predicting no change in preference when the ratios of delays and amounts are held constant. In addition, the change in preference under the 3:1 ratio is inconsistent with a simple multiplicative interaction of the trade off between reinforcer amount and delay, and suggests that delay is a more potent determinant of choice than is amount. These results have implications for models that view choice between small immediate rewards and large but delayed rewards as underlying the behavior commonly called self control.     

Determinants of pigeons' waiting time: Effects of interreinforcement interval and food delay

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.     

Choice performance in several concurrent key-peck treadle-press reinforcement schedules

Five pigeons were exposed to several concurrent variable-interval food reinforcement schedules. For three subjects, one component of the schedule required a key-pecking response, the other a treadle-pressing response. For the other two subjects, both schedule components required treadle-pressing responses. The relative probability of reinforcement associated with the manipulanda was varied from 0 to 1.0 in 13 experimental conditions for the Key-Treadle subjects and nine conditions for the Treadle-Treadle subjects. The results indicated that the logarithms of relative time spent responding, and the logarithms of relative number of responses emitted on a manipulandum, approximated direct linear functions of logarithms of the relative frequencies of reinforcement associated with that manipulandum. No systematic bias in favor of time spent key pecking over time spent treadle pressing was apparent for the Key-Treadle subjects. All subjects exhibited undermatching, in that the ratios of time and response allocation at the alternatives systematically differed from the ratios of reinforcers obtained from the alternatives in the direction of indifference. Key pecking appeared to have no special link to food beyond treadle pressing or what would be expected on the basis of the reinforcement dependencies alone.     

Delayed matching-to-sample performance: Effects of relative reinforcer frequency and of signaled versus unsignaled reinforcer magnitudes

Six pigeons were trained on a delayed red-green matching-to-sample task that arranged four delays within sessions. Matching responses intermittently produced either 1.5-s access to food or 4.5-s access to food, and nonmatching responses produced either 1.5-s or 4.5-s blackout. Two phases were conducted: a signaled phase in which the reinforcer magnitudes (small and large) were signaled by houselights (positioned either on the left or right of the chamber), and an unsignaled phase in which there was no correlation between reinforcer magnitude and houselight position. In both phases, the relative frequency with which red and green matching responses produced food was varied across five values. Both matching accuracy and the sensitivity of performance to the distribution of reinforcers for matching responses decreased with increasing delays in both phases. In addition, accuracy and reinforcer sensitivity were significantly lower on signaled small-reinforcer trials compared with accuracy and sensitivity values on signaled large-reinforcer trials and on both types of unsignaled trials. These results are discussed in the context of research on both nonhuman animal and human memory.     

Concurrent-schedule performance in transition: changeover delays and signaled reinforcer ratios

Six pigeons were trained in experimental sessions that arranged six or seven components with various concurrent-schedule reinforcer ratios associated with each. The order of the components was determined randomly without replacement. Components lasted until the pigeons had received 10 reinforcers, and were separated by 10-s blackout periods. The component reinforcer ratios arranged in most conditions were 27:1, 9:1, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3, 1:9 and 1:27; in others, there were only six components, three of 27:1 and three of 1:27. In some conditions, each reinforcement ratio was signaled by a different red-yellow flash frequency, with the frequency perfectly correlated with the reinforcer ratio. Additionally, a changeover delay was arranged in some conditions, and no changeover delay in others. When component reinforcer ratios were signaled, sensitivity to reinforcement values increased from around 0.40 before the first reinforcer in a component to around 0.80 before the 10th reinforcer. When reinforcer ratios were not signaled, sensitivities typically increased from zero to around 0.40. Sensitivity to reinforcement was around 0.20 lower in no-changeover-delay conditions than in changeover-delay conditions, but increased in the former after exposure to changeover delays. Local analyses showed that preference was extreme towards the reinforced alternative for the first 25 s after reinforcement in changeover-delay conditions regardless of whether components were signaled or not. In no-changeover-delay conditions, preference following reinforcers was either absent, or, following exposure to changeover delays, small. Reinforcers have both local and long-term effects on preference. The former, but not the latter, is strongly affected by the presence of a changeover delay. Stimulus control may be more closely associated with longer-term, more molar, reinforcer effects.