Motivational control of impulsive behavior interacts with choice opportunities

Impulsive behavior has been investigated through choice between a smaller/immediate reinforcer and a larger/delayed reinforcer, or through performance on a differential reinforcement of low rate (DRL) schedule. In the present study, we investigated a methodological divergence between these two procedures: in the former procedure, delay is a consequence of the subject's own choice, whereas in the later procedure, subjects are explicitly reinforced for delaying a response. In Experiment 1, 7 rats maintained at 80% of their free-feeding weights showed poorer efficiency of lever-pressing responses on a DRL 30-s schedule than when they were maintained at 90% of free-feeding weight. In Experiment 2, 16 rats were subjected to a concurrent chain schedule: the initial link was concurrent fixed ratio 1 fixed ratio 1, and each of these alternatives was followed by a short-DRL requirement with a one pellet reinforcer or a long-DRL requirement with a three pellet reinforcer. In one block of trials, rats were not allowed to choose between the two terminal links (forced-choice), whereas in the other block of trials rats were allowed to choose freely between the two terminal links (free-choice). Compared with rats maintained at 95% of their free-feeding weights, rats maintained at 80% of their free-feeding weights showed poorer efficiency in the terminal links’ DRL schedule performance (just as in Experiment 1), but this difference was shown only in the forced-choice blocks. These results indicate that motivational control of DRL schedule performance interacts with type of choice-making opportunity and highlight the direct comparison of motivational control of impulsive choice and DRL schedule performance.     

Choice and amount of reinforcement in rats

Rats were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules in which the terminal links were equal, fixed-interval (FI) schedules terminating in one or a varying number of food pellets. In most rats, choice proportions for the larger reinforcer increased with increases in reinforcer amount (e.g., from one to five food pellets). When log response ratios were plotted against log reinforcer amount ratios, the results indicated that the effects of reinforcer amount depended on the length of fixed-interval terminal links, by showing that rats undermatched their response ratios to reinforcer amount ratios with the shorter terminal links (FI 5 s, Experiment 1), whereas they overmatched with the longer terminal links (FI 20 s, Experiment 2). These results demonstrated that the manipulation of FI terminal-link schedules affected the sensitivity of choice to reinforcer amount, and are consistent with the previous findings that choice proportions for the larger of two reinforcers (one vs three food pellets) increased with increases in the length of FI terminal-link schedules.     

Choice between delayed reinforcers in an adjusting-delay schedule: The effects of absolute reinforcer size and deprivation level

Choice between two reinforcers differing in magnitude and delay was investigated in rats using an adjusting-delay discrete-trials schedule in which the two reinforcers were associated with two levers (A and B). The delay to Reinforcer A (the smaller reinforcer) was always 2 sec, whereas the delay to Reinforcer B was varied in accordance with the distribution of choices in successive blocks of trials. In Experiment 1, the mean delay to the large reinforcer during the last 5 of 60 training sessions was greater when the rats were maintained at 80% than when they were maintained at 90% of their free-feeding body weights. In Experiment 2, the delay to the larger reinforcer was greater when the two reinforcers consisted of one and two 45-mg food pellets than when they consisted of three and six pellets. The results are consistent with a model of “self-control” which posits hyperbolic relations between reinforcer value and reinforcer magnitude, and between reinforcer value and delay of reinforcement.     

Choice between Delayed Reinforcers: Interaction between Delay and Deprivation Level

Choice between two reinforcers differing in magnitude and delay was investigated in rats maintained at 80% ( n = 10) or 90% ( n = 10) of their free-feeding body weights using discrete-trials adjusting-delay schedules in which the two reinforcers (S\[mall] and L\[arge]) were associated with different levers. In each phase of the experiment the delay to the smaller reinforcer ( dS ) was held constant, and the delay to the larger reinforcer ( dL ) was varied in accordance with the distribution of choices in successive blocks of trials. The value of dS was varied across the four phases of the experiment (2, 4, 8, and 2 sec). When dS was 2 sec, the mean value of dL was higher in the rats maintained at 80% than in those maintained at 90% of their free-feeding body weights. When dS was increased, the value of dL increased in both groups; however the effect of deprivation level was abolished. The results are consistent with a model of choice that posits hyperbolic relations between reinforcer value and reinforcer magnitude, and between reinforcer value and delay of reinforcement.     

Human risky choice under temporal constraints: tests of an energy-budget model

Risk-sensitive foraging models predict that choice between fixed and variable food delays should be influenced by an organism's energy budget. To investigate whether the predictions of these models could be extended to choice in humans, risk sensitivity in 4 adults was investigated under laboratory conditions designed to model positive and negative energy budgets. Subjects chose between fixed and variable trial durations with the same mean value. An energy requirement was modeled by requiring that five trials be completed within a limited time period for points delivered at the end of the period (block of trials) to be exchanged later for money. Manipulating the duration of this time period generated positive and negative earnings budgets (or, alternatively, "time budgets"). Choices were consistent with the predictions of energy-budget models: The fixed-delay option was strongly preferred under positive earnings-budget conditions and the variable-delay option was strongly preferred under negative earnings-budget conditions. Within-block (or trial-by-trial) choices were also frequently consistent with the predictions of a dynamic optimization model, indicating that choice was simultaneously sensitive to the temporal requirements, delays associated with fixed and variable choices on the upcoming trial, cumulative delays within the block of trials, and trial position within a block.     

Choice and number of reinforcers

Pigeons were exposed to the concurrent-chains procedure in two experiments designed to investigate the effects of unequal numbers of reinforcers on choice. In Experiment 1, the pigeons were indifferent between long and short durations of access to variable-interval schedules of equal reinforcement density, but preferred a short high-density terminal link over a longer, lower density terminal link, even though in both sets of comparisons there were many more reinforcers per cycle in the longer terminal link. In Experiment 2, the pigeons preferred five reinforcers, the first of which was available after 30 sec, over a single reinforcer available at 30 sec, but only when the local interval between successive reinforcers was short. The pigeons were indifferent when this local interval was sufficiently long. The pigeons' behavior appeared to be under the control of local terminal-link variables, such as the intervals to the first reinforcer and between successive reinforcers, and was not well described in terms of transformed delays of reinforcement or reductions in average delay to reinforcement.     

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.     

ISOLATING BEHAVIORAL MECHANISMS OF INTERTEMPORAL CHOICE: NICOTINE EFFECT ON DELAY DISCOUNTING AND AMOUNT SENSITIVITY

Many drugs of abuse produce changes in impulsive choice, that is, choice for a smaller—sooner reinforcer over a larger—later reinforcer. Because the alternatives differ in both delay and amount, it is not clear whether these drug effects are due to the differences in reinforcer delay or amount. To isolate the effects of delay, we used a titrating delay procedure. In phase 1, 9 rats made discrete choices between variable delays (1 or 19 s, equal probability of each) and a delay to a single food pellet. The computer titrated the delay to a single food pellet until the rats were indifferent between the two options. This indifference delay was used as the starting value for the titrating delay for all future sessions. We next evaluated the acute effects of nicotine (subcutaneous 1.0, 0.3, 0.1, and 0.03 mg/kg) on choice. If nicotine increases delay discounting, it should have increased preference for the variable delay. Instead, nicotine had very little effect on choice. In a second phase, the titrated delay alternative produced three food pellets instead of one, which was again produced by the variable delay (1 s or 19 s) alternative. Under this procedure, nicotine increased preference for the one pellet alternative. Nicotine‐induced changes in impulsive choice are therefore likely due to differences in reinforcer amount rather than differences in reinforcer delay. In addition, it may be necessary to include an amount sensitivity parameter in any mathematical model of choice when the alternatives differ in reinforcer amount.     

Pigeons' preference for variable-interval water reinforcement under widely varied water budgets.

Water budget of pigeons was varied to assess the dependence of risk-sensitive preferences upon economic context such as has been reported for energy-budget manipulations with small animals in behavioral ecology research. Fixed- and variable-interval terminal-link water schedules reinforced choice between equal variable-interval initial-link schedules arranged on two pecking keys. While keeping a severely restrictive budget the same across three phases of the experiment, a contrasting distinct ample budget was arranged in each. To mimic typical methods in behavioral ecology studies, in each ample budget a more than three-fold increase in amount of water per reinforcer presentation was instituted simultaneously with significantly increased overall access to water. Total choice response rates plummeted in the ample budgets, and body weights either increased significantly or remained unchanged in different phases as expected by the nature of the different manipulations. Clear preferences for the variable-interval schedule were found throughout the experiment, except for rare instances of key bias. The results agree with similar operant food-reinforcement studies and extend conditions under which risk preference apparently does not depend upon economic context.     

Soft commitment: self-control achieved by response persistence.

With reinforcement contingent on a single peck on either of two available keys (concurrent continuous reinforcement schedules) 4 pigeons, at 80% of free-feeding weights, preferred a smaller-sooner reinforcer (2.5 s of mixed grain preceded by a 0.5-s delay) to a larger-later reinforcer (4.5 s of mixed grain preceded by a 3.5-s delay). However, when the smaller-sooner and larger-later reinforcers were contingent on a concurrent fixed-ratio 31 schedule (the first 30 pecks distributed in any way on the two keys), all pigeons obtained the larger-later reinforcer much more often than they did when only a single peck was required. This "self-control" was achieved by beginning to peck the key leading to the larger-later reinforcer and persisting on that key until reinforcement occurred. We call this persistence "soft commitment" to distinguish it from strict commitment, in which self-control is achieved by preventing changeovers. Soft commitment also effectively achieved self-control when a brief (1-s) signal was inserted between the 30th and 31st response of the ratio and with concurrent fixed-interval 30-s schedules (rather than ratio schedules) of reinforcement. In a second experiment with the same subjects, the fixed ratio was interrupted by darkening both keys and lighting a third (center) key on which pecking was required for various fractions of the fixed-ratio count. The interruption significantly reduced self-control. When interruption was complete (30 responses on the center key followed by a single choice response), pigeons chose the smaller-sooner reinforcer as frequently as they did when only a single choice response was required.     

Choice and multiple reinforcers

Pigeons chose between equivalent two-component mixed and multiple terminal-link schedules of reinforcement in the concurrent-chains procedure. The pigeons preferred the multiple schedule over the mixed when the components of the compound schedules were differentiated in terms of density of reinforcement, but the pigeons were indifferent when the components were differentiated in terms of number of reinforcers per cycle. Taken together, these results indicate that a local variable, the interval to the first reinforcer, but not a molar variable, the number of reinforcers, was sufficient to differentiate the components and thereby evoke preference.     

A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.

Single- and concurrent-operants procedures were used to evaluate the effects of two reinforcement conditions on the free-operant responding of 3 individuals with developmental disabilities and 1 with attention deficit disorder. In the presession choice condition, prior to each session the participant chose one item from an array of three different highly preferred stimuli. This item was delivered by the experimenter on each reinforcer delivery during that session. In the within-session choice condition, each reinforcer delivery consisted of placing an array of three different highly preferred stimuli in front of the participant, who was allowed to select one. Only one of the two reinforcement conditions was in effect for any particular session in single-operant phases. Buttons associated with each reinforcement condition were present, and the participant could allocate responses to one or the other in concurrent-operants phases. Data showed substantially more responding to the button associated with within-session choice than presession choice during concurrent-operants phases. This effect was not as apparent during single-operant phases, suggesting that a concurrent-operants procedure provided the more sensitive evaluation of within-session and presession reinforcer choice effects.     

Self-control and choice in humans: Effects of video game playing as a positive reinforcer

Participants chose between reinforcement schedules differing in delay of reinforcement (interval between a choice response and onset of a video game) and/or amount of reinforcement (duration of access to the game). Experiment 1 showed that immediate reinforcement was preferred to delayed reinforcement with amount of reinforcement held constant, and a large reinforcer was preferred to a small reinforcer when both were obtainable immediately. Imposing a delay before the large reinforcer produced a preference for the immediate, small reinforcer in 40% of participants. This suggested a limited degree of “impulsivity.” In Experiment 2, unequal delays were extended by equal intervals, the amounts being kept equal. Preference for the shorter delay decreased, an effect that presumably makes possible the “preference reversal” phenomenon in studies of self-control. Overall, the results demonstrate that video game playing can produce useful, systematic data when used as a positive reinforcer for choice behavior in humans.     

Choice between delayed reinforcers in a discrete-trials schedule: The effect of deprivation level

Choice between two reinforcers differing in magnitude and delay was investigated in rats using a discrete-trials schedule in which the two reinforcers were associated with two levers (A and B); in each session 5 free-choice trials (A and B both available) were interspersed among 44 forced-choice trials (A alone, 22 trials; B alone, 22 trials). In Experiment 1, preference for the more concentrated of two sucrose solutions declined as the delay to that reinforcer was progressively increased. In Experiment 2, progressively increasing the delay to both reinforcers by the same amount resulted in a shift in preference away from the less concentrated solution. In Experiment 3, it was found that the decline in preference for the more concentrated solution as a function of the delay to that reinforcer was steeper when the rats were maintained at 90% than when they were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding body weights. This effect of deprivation level on choice is inconsistent with some current models of “self-control”.     

Negative reinforcement and choice in humans

Participants chose between reinforcement schedules differing in delay and/or duration of noise offset. In Experiment 1 it was found that (1) immediate reinforcement was preferred to delayed reinforcement when amounts (durations) of reinforcement were equal; (2) a relatively large reinforcer was preferred to a smaller one when both reinforcers were obtained immediately; and (3) preference for an immediate, small reinforcer versus a delayed, large reinforcer increased as the delay preceding the large reinforcer increased, a sign of “impulsivity”. In Experiment 2, the schedules differed in amount or delay and equal intervals were added either to the constant parameter or the varied parameter. A shift from virtually exclusive preference to indifference occurred in the latter case but not the former, a result supporting a model of self-control that assumes that the value of a schedule depends on the ratio of amount and delay, and that choice between schedules depends on the ratio of these values.     

Quinine pellets as an inferior good and a Giffen good in rats.

In Experiment 1, 4 rats earned their daily food ration by choosing between two levers. One lever delivered two regular and one quinine-adulterated food pellets, and the other delivered two regular and four quinine pellets. A 20-s intertrial interval separated successive choices. Sessions began with 10 forced trials during which only one lever, selected with p = .5 and cued by a light above it, could deliver its reinforcer. Forced trials were followed by 30 or 150 trials, depending on the condition, during which choices to either lever could be reinforced. Over this range, absolute choice of the four-quinine, two-regular-pellet lever was inversely related to the number of free-choice trials, establishing this reinforcer as an inferior good. In Condition 1 of Experiment 2, the prior design was altered in two ways: (a) one lever delivered four quinine pellets, and the other lever delivered one standard pellet; and (b) sessions ended after 140 free-choice trials. When the number of free-choice trials was reduced to 100 (Condition 2), all 3 rats increased their preference for quinine pellets, confirming their status as an inferior good. In the next several conditions, the number of quinine pellets provided for selecting its associated lever was varied between three and four. Preference for the quinine-pellet alternative was inversely related to the number of pellets it provided, a result defining it as a Giffen good. These findings are not accommodated readily by extant choice models and complicate the search for a unitary model of choice.     

Responding on concurrent-chains schedules in open and closed economies.

Pigeons' key pecks were reinforced according to concurrent-chains schedules of reinforcement. The programmed average time from the onset of the initial links to a terminal link entry was held constant across conditions while the value of variable-interval schedules in the terminal links was varied. Performance was assessed under two economic conditions: (a) an open economy in which session duration was limited to 1 hr and subjects were maintained at 80% of their free-feeding body weights with postsession food when necessary; and (b) a closed economy in which sessions were 23.5 hr long and no deprivation regimen was in effect. In all cases, the relative rate of responding in the initial links matched the reduction in overall delay to primary reinforcement correlated with entry into one terminal link relative to the reduction in delay correlated with entry into the other terminal link. Although the sum of responses made in the initial links and terminal links was found to increase, then decrease, as the rate of food presentation decreased in the closed economy, there was no consistent effect of overall rate of food presentation on total responding in the open economy. The choice data suggest that relative delay reduction predicts choice accurately, regardless of economic context.     

Choice and transformed interreinforcement intervals

Pigeons chose between two aperiodic, time-based schedules of reinforcement. The arithmetic mean interreinforcement interval of the first schedule was short, but the harmonic mean was long, whereas the arithmetic mean interreinforcement interval of the second schedule was long, but the harmonic mean was short. The pigeons preferred the schedule with the shorter harmonic mean in a concurrent-chains procedure when a terminal link ended after the first scheduled reinforcer had been gained on a terminal-link entry, but reversed their preferences, such that they preferred the schedule with the shorter arithmetic mean, when the terminal links ended after a fixed duration of exposure to the schedule. Moreover, the pigeons preferred the schedule with the shorter arithmetic mean in a two-key concurrent variable-interval variable-interval procedure, as well as in a concurrent variable-time variable-time, changeover-key procedure. The data suggest that an aggregate property of a schedule may not yield valid information about the responding that schedule will maintain as a choice alternative.     

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.     

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.