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 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”.     

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.     

The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on preference and resistance to change

Previous research has demonstrated that factors such as reinforcer frequency, amount, and delay have similar effects on resistance to change and preference. In the present study, 4 boys with autism made choices between a constant reinforcer (one that was the same food item every trial) and a varied food reinforcer (one that varied randomly between three possible food items). For all 4 boys, varied reinforcers were preferred over constant reinforcers, and they maintained higher response rates than constant reinforcers. In addition, when a distraction (a video clip) was introduced, responding maintained by varied reinforcers was more resistant to distraction than responding maintained by constant reinforcers. Thus, the present experiment extended the generality of the relation between preference and resistance to change to variation in reinforcer quality.     

Cocaine and food deprivation: effects on food-reinforced fixed-ratio performance in pigeons.

Key pecking by 6 pigeons was maintained by a fixed-ratio 30 schedule of food presentation while body weights were 80% of free-feeding weights. Acute administration of cocaine (0.3 to 13.0 mg/kg, i.m.) dose-dependently decreased response rates. Dose-effect curves were shifted to the right when 3 of the 6 pigeons were maintained at 70% of free-feeding weights and were shifted to the left when the other 3 pigeons were maintained at 90% of free-feeding weights. Then a dose of cocaine that initially decreased response rates by more than 95% of control rates was administered before each daily session. Comparable degrees of tolerance to these rate-decreasing effects developed in the two groups. The rate at which responding recovered was relatively rapid for pigeons in the 70% free-feeding-weight group and was slower for 2 of the 3 pigeons in the 90% free-feeding-weight group. When body weights were then increased from 70% to 80% or were decreased from 90% to 80% of free-feeding weight, performance was disrupted initially only for pigeons whose weight went from 70% to 80% of free feeding. In the present experiment the degree of deprivation may have indirectly influenced the degree of tolerance that developed to cocaine's response rate-decreasing effects because it directly influenced the dose chosen to be administered chronically. The degree of deprivation appeared to have a more direct influence on the rate at which tolerance developed.     

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 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.     

Choice between constant and variable alternatives by rats: effects of different reinforcer amounts and energy budgets

Two experiments, using rats as subjects, investigated the effect of different reinforcer amounts and energy budgets on choice between constant and variable alternatives under a closed economy. Rats were housed in the chamber and were exposed to a modified concurrent-chains schedule in which the choice phase was separated from a rest phase during which the rats could engage in other activities. In the choice phase, a single variable-interval schedule arranged entry into one of two equal terminal links (fixed-interval schedules). The constant terminal link ended with the delivery of a fixed number of food pellets (two or three, depending on the condition), whereas the variable terminal link ended with a variable number of food pellets (means of two or three, depending on the condition). Energy budget was defined as positive when body weights were over 90% of free-feeding weights, and as negative when they were under 80% of free-feeding weights. The different body weights were produced by varying the duration of the equal terminal-link schedules within daily 3-hr sessions. In Experiment 1, rats chose between a constant and a variable three pellets under both energy budgets. Rats preferred the constant three pellets more under the positive energy budget, whereas they were indifferent under the negative energy budget. In Experiment 2, rats chose between a constant three pellets and a variable two pellets, and chose between a constant two pellets and a variable three pellets under both energy budgets. The rats strongly preferred the constant three pellets over the variable two pellets under both energy budgets. In contrast, rats preferred the variable three pellets over the constant two pellets only under the negative energy budget, whereas they were indifferent under the positive energy budget. These results indicate that rats choices are sensitive to the difference in reinforcer amounts and to the energy budgets defined by the level of body weight. The present results are consistent with those obtained with small granivorous birds as well as with the predictions of a recent risk-sensitive foraging theory.     

Sensitivity to relative reinforcer rate in concurrent schedules: independence from relative and absolute reinforcer duration

Twelve pigeons responded on two keys under concurrent variable-interval (VI) schedules. Over several series of conditions, relative and absolute magnitudes of reinforcement were varied. Within each series, relative rate of reinforcement was varied and sensitivity of behavior ratios to reinforcer-rate ratios was assessed. When responding at both alternatives was maintained by equal-sized small reinforcers, sensitivity to variation in reinforcer-rate ratios was the same as when large reinforcers were used. This result was observed when the overall rate of reinforcement was constant over conditions, and also in another series of concurrent schedules in which one schedule was kept constant at VI ached 120 s. Similarly, reinforcer magnitude did not affect the rate at which response allocation approached asymptote within a condition. When reinforcer magnitudes differred between the two responses and reinforcer-rate ratios were varied, sensitivity of behavior allocation was unaffected although response bias favored the schedule that arranged the larger reinforcers. Analysis of absolute response rates ratio sensitivity to reinforcement occurrred on the two keys showed that this invariance of response despite changes in reinforcement interaction that were observed in absolute response rates on the constant VI 120-s schedule. Response rate on the constant VI 120-s schedule was inversely related to reinforcer rate on the varied key and the strength of this relation depended on the relative magnitude of reinforcers arranged on varied key. Independence of sensitivity to reinforcer-rate ratios from relative and absolute reinforcer magnitude is consistent with the relativity and independence assumtions of the matching law.     

Delay discounting of qualitatively different reinforcers in rats

Humans discount larger delayed rewards less steeply than smaller rewards, whereas no such magnitude effect has been observed in rats (and pigeons). It remains possible that rats' discounting is sensitive to differences in the quality of the delayed reinforcer even though it is not sensitive to amount. To evaluate this possibility, Experiment 1 examined discounting of qualitatively different food reinforcers: highly preferred versus nonpreferred food pellets. Similarly, Experiment 2 examined discounting of highly preferred versus nonpreferred liquid reinforcers. In both experiments, an adjusting-amount procedure was used to determine the amount of immediate reinforcer that was judged to be of equal subjective value to the delayed reinforcer. The amount and quality of the delayed reinforcer were varied across conditions. Discounting was well described by a hyperbolic function, but no systematic effects of the quantity or the quality of the delayed reinforcer were observed.     

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.     

Self-control in mentally retarded adolescents: choice as a function of amount and delay of reinforcement.

Three severely mentally retarded adolescents were studied under discrete-trial procedures in which a choice was arranged between edible reinforcers that differed in magnitude and, in some conditions, delay. In the absence of delays the larger reinforcer was consistently chosen. Under conditions in which the smaller reinforcer was not delayed, increasing the delay to delivery of the larger reinforcer decreased the percentage of trials in which that reinforcer was chosen. All subjects directed the majority of choice responses to the smaller reinforcer when the larger reinforcer was sufficiently delayed, although the value at which this occurred differed across subjects. Under conditions in which the larger reinforcer initially was sufficiently delayed to result in preference for the smaller one, progressively increasing in 5-s increments the delay to both reinforcers increased percentage of trials with the larger reinforcer chosen. At sufficiently long delays, 2 of the subjects consistently chose the larger, but more delayed, reinforcer, and the 3rd subject chose that reinforcer on half of the trials. These results are consistent with the findings of prior studies in which adult humans responded to terminate noise and pigeons responded to produce food.     

The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement

Pigeons' pecks were reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule. A delay-of-reinforcement procedure was then added to the schedule, or a yoked-control procedure was arranged where the reinforcers occurred independently of responding according to the same variable-interval schedule. During the delay-of-reinforcement procedure, the first peck after a reinforcer was scheduled began a delay timer and the reinforcer was delivered at the end of the interval. No stimulus change signalled the delay interval and responses could occur during it, so that the obtained delays were often shorter than those scheduled. Responding under this procedure was highly variable but, in general, behavior was substantially reduced even with the shortest delay used, 3 sec. In addition, the rates maintained by delayed reinforcement were only slightly greater than those maintained by the yoked-control procedure, suggesting that adventitious pairings of response and reinforcer were responsible for some of the maintenance of behavior that did occur. The results challenge recent conceptions of reinforcement as involving response-reinforcer correlations and re-emphasize the role of temporal proximity between response and reinforcer.     

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.     

The interaction between stimulus and reinforcer control on remembering.

In a symbolic matching-to-sample task, 6 pigeons obtained food by pecking a red side key when the brighter of two white lights had been presented on the center key and by pecking a green side key when the dimmer of two white lights had been presented on the center key. Across Part 1 and Parts 6 to 10, the delay between sample-stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice keys was varied between 0 s and 25 s. Across Parts 1 to 5, the delay between the emission of a correct choice and the delivery of a reinforcer was varied between 0 s and 30 s. Although increasing both types of delay decreased stimulus discriminability, lengthening the stimulus-choice delay produced a greater decrement in choice accuracy than did lengthening the choice-reinforcer delay. Additionally, the relative reinforcer rate for correct choice was varied across both types of delay. The sensitivity of behavior to the distribution of reinforcers decreased as discriminability decreased under both procedures. These data are consistent with the view, based on the generalized matching law, that sample stimuli and reinforcers interact in their control over remembering.     

The role of temporal intervals on reinforcer accumulation

Animals accumulate reinforcers when they forgo the opportunity to consume available food in favor of acquiring additional food for later consumption. Laboratory research has shown that reinforcer accumulation is facilitated when an interval (either spatial or temporal) separates earning from consuming reinforcers. However, there has been no systematic investigation on the interval separating consuming reinforcers from earning additional reinforcers. This oversight is problematic because this second interval is an integral part of much of the previous research on reinforcer accumulation. The purpose of the current study was to determine the independent contributions of these two temporal intervals on reinforcer accumulation in rats. Each left lever press earned a single food pellet; delivery of the accumulated pellet(s) occurred upon a right lever press. Conditions varied based on the presence of either an intertrial interval (ITI) that separated pellet delivery from the further opportunity to accumulate more pellets, or a delay‐to‐reinforcement that separated the right lever press from the delivery of the accumulated pellet(s). Delay and ITI values of 0, 5, 10 and 20 s were investigated. The delay‐to‐reinforcement conditions produced greater accumulation relative to the ITI conditions, despite accumulation increasing the density of reinforcement more substantially in the ITI conditions. This finding suggests that the temporal separation between reinforcer accumulation and subsequent delivery and consumption was a more critical variable in controlling reinforcer accumulation.     

Open versus closed economies: performance of domestic hens under fixed ratio schedules

Domestic hens responded under fixed-ratio schedules of food (wheat) reinforcement under several experimental conditions. Part 1 (open economy) investigated performance on fixed-ratio schedules over both multisession steady-state conditions and daily changes of the schedule, with hens maintained at 80% of free-feeding weights by extraexperimental feeding. In Parts 2 and 3 (closed economy and short sessions) sessions were 40 min long, and the hens' weights were allowed to vary (Part 2) or sessions were conducted only when the hens were at approximately 80% of free-feeding weights (Part 3). In Part 4 (closed economy and long sessions) sessions were 24 hr long and the fixed-ratio requirement was changed either daily or after 7 consecutive days. In general, the daily changes of fixed-ratio requirement in the open economy and short-session closed economy gave much the same result as the steady-state open-economy sessions. Overall response and reinforcer rates decreased with increasing fixed-ratio requirement (except at the shortest fixed ratios). Running response rates decreased, and postreinforcement pauses generally increased. In contrast, overall response rates in the long-session closed economy generally increased with the fixed-ratio requirement. Session length is suggested as a cause of the differences between the short- and long-session closed-economy results.     

A second type of magnitude effect: Reinforcer magnitude differentiates delay discounting between substance users and controls

Basic research on delay discounting, examining preference for smaller–sooner or larger–later reinforcers, has demonstrated a variety of findings of considerable generality. One of these, the magnitude effect, is the observation that individuals tend to exhibit greater preference for the immediate with smaller magnitude reinforcers. Delay discounting has also proved to be a useful marker of addiction, as demonstrated by the highly replicated finding of greater discounting rates in substance users compared to controls. However, some research on delay discounting rates in substance users, particularly research examining discounting of small‐magnitude reinforcers, has not found significant differences compared to controls. Here, we hypothesize that the magnitude effect could produce ceiling effects at small magnitudes, thus obscuring differences in delay discounting between groups. We examined differences in discounting between high‐risk substance users and controls over a broad range of magnitudes of monetary amounts ($0.10, $1.00, $10.00, $100.00, and $1000.00) in 116 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. We found no significant differences in discounting rates between users and controls at the smallest reinforcer magnitudes ($0.10 and $1.00) and further found that differences became more pronounced as magnitudes increased. These results provide an understanding of a second form of the magnitude effect: That is, differences in discounting between populations can become more evident as a function of reinforcer magnitude.     

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.