Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol

Little is known about the acute effects of drugs of abuse on impulsivity and self-control. In this study, impulsivity was assessed in humans using a computer task that measured delay and probability discounting. Discounting describes how much the value of a reward (or punisher) is decreased when its occurrence is either delayed or uncertain. Twenty-four healthy adult volunteers ingested a moderate dose of ethanol (0.5 or 0.8 g/kg ethanol: n = 12 at each dose) or placebo before completing the discounting task. In the task the participants were given a series of choices between a small, immediate, certain amount of money and $10 that was either delayed (0, 2, 30, 180, or 365 days) or probabilistic (i.e., certainty of receipt was 1.0, .9, .75, .5, or .25). The point at which each individual was indifferent between the smaller immediate or certain reward and the $10 delayed or probabilistic reward was identified using an adjusting-amount procedure. The results indicated that (a) delay and probability discounting were well described by a hyperbolic function; (b) delay and probability discounting were positively correlated within subjects; (c) delay and probability discounting were moderately correlated with personality measures of impulsivity; and (d) alcohol had no effect on discounting.     

Judging the strength of designated evidence

Judgments of evidence strength were obtained in a series of vignettes, each containing one or two items of evidence for each of two logically independent hypotheses. Each judgment concerned a designated subset of the presented evidence. Different groups of subjects encountered different but overlapping sets of evidence. We compared groups that judged the same designated evidence for the same hypothesis, but differed in exposure to surrounding (nondesignated) evidence. Results showed clear separation of relevant from irrelevant evidence and of designated from surrounding relevant evidence. This was particularly clear in the second experiment, where judgments of designated evidence remained invariant whether the surrounding evidence supported or contradicted the specified hypothesis. The conjunction fallacy was observed for judgments of evidence strength, but was substantially reduced by a simple instruction. Because subjects can separate evidence, it becomes possible to construct cardinally scaled standards of evidence strength using conjoint-measurement methods.     

Interaction of data and hypotheses in probabilistic inference tasks: Rejection of the hypothesis sampling model?

The problem of whether or not data influence subjects' sampling of hypotheses about functional relations in the probabilistic inference tasks was examined. The results of the experiment show first, a considerable impact of data on subjects' hypothesis selection and second, that the subjects significantly modify their hypothesis selection from one part of the experiment to the other. Thus, there is an interaction of data and hypotheses in cue probability learning (CPL) tasks regarding the hypothesis sampling process and an execution of cognitive control over the subjects' hypothesis pool.     

Differential reinforcement and signal detection.

Reinforcement was introduced for responses normally treated as errors in signal-detection procedures. The first experiment used a standard two-response discrete-trial procedure with no reinforcement for errors. Results showed that rats altered their response biases but maintained constant sensitivity to visual signals when reinforcement probabilities varied, and that their sensitivity depended on the physical difference between signals, in accordance with the predictions of signal-detection theory. Experiment II, with rats, and Experiment III, with pigeons, demonstrated that sensitivity decreased in this procedure when reinforcement was scheduled for errors with the signals held constant, despite independence of overall number of reinforcers and sensitivity. Experiment IV, with rats, replicated the decrease in sensitivity in a continuous procedure employing only one response. The decrements in sensitivity were similar across Experiments II, III, and IV, and accorded well with earlier research. Thus, contrary to a fundamental assumption of signal-detection theory, estimates of sensitivity are not always invariant with respect to the outcomes of responding, but depend on relative reinforcement of correct responses.     

Tradeoffs in choice between risk and delay depend on monetary amounts

In Experiments 1 and 2, 25 and 48 college students made binary choices between hypothetical money amounts. In Part A, choices were between small amounts available with certainty and larger amounts ($10 to $10,000) available with risk. Choices in Part B were between immediate small amounts and delayed larger amounts. As money amount grew, risk aversion and delay aversion both changed but in opposite ways: Risk aversion grew but delay aversion shrank. Part C of Experiment 1 pitted risky amounts against delayed amounts, and its results were consistent with those of Parts A and B. Equivalences of particular risks and delays depended on the particular monetary amounts to which they attached. In Experiment 3, 20 college students made binary choices between money amounts, knowing that they would actually receive some of the selections they made. In Part A, choices were between certain small amounts and risky larger amounts ($1 and $10). Choice problems in Part B were between immediate small amounts and delayed receipt of $1 or $10. The results were like those of Experiment 1, though weaker. These results argue against models of choice that posit an equivalence of risk and delay that is independent of monetary amount.     

Inhibiting function of reinforcement: magnitude effects on variable-interval schedules

In two experiments, the performance of rats under constant-probability and arithmetic variable-interval schedules respectively was compared when the concentration of a liquid reinforcer was varied within sessions; in other sessions, half of the reinforcers were randomly omitted. When the discriminative function of the reinforcer as a signal for a decrease in the probability of reinforcement was attenuated (the constant-probability schedule) the postreinforcement pause duration was nevertheless an increasing function of reinforcer magnitude. This relationship was also present, but more marked, when the temporal discriminative function of the reinforcer was enhanced (the arithmetic schedule). These results suggested that reinforcement has an unconditioned suppressive effect on the reinforced response distinct from any discriminative function it may acquire. The reinforcement-omission effect, where response rate accelerates following omission, was observed when the reinforcer functioned as an effective temporal discriminative stimulus, but not when such temporal control was absent.     

The effect of foreperiod duration on reaction time and its relation to interval schedules of reinforcement

Two groups of pigeons were exposed to a simple reaction-time procedure in which mean foreperiod duration was 5, 10, or 20 seconds. For one group, the foreperiods had an arithmetic, or rectangular, distribution; for the second group, they had a constant-probability, or Bernoulli, distribution. Under both distributions, mean response latency was an increasing, negatively accelerated function of mean foreperiod duration. On a given trial, response latency was a function of its associated foreperiod duration: latency was a decreasing function of foreperiod duration in the arithmetic distribution, and an increasing function of foreperiod duration in the constant-probability distribution. Examination of the distribution of latencies revealed a harmonic structure reminiscent of distributions of interresponse times under variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. Taken together, the results confirm and extend previous findings with human subjects, and also suggest numerous similarities to behavior maintained by variable-interval schedules.     

Signal probability, reinforcement and signal detection.

Five pigeons were trained to detect differences in light intensity. Two stimuli, S1 and S2, differing in intensity, were arranged on the center key of a three-key chamber according to set probabilities. A peck on the center key turned on the two side keys. When S1 was presented on the center key, a peck on the left key was "correct" and when S2 was presented, a peck on the right key was "correct." Correct responses produced reinforcement and incorrect responses produced 3-second blackout. Detection performance was measured under three procedures. The first was a standard signal-detection design in which the probability of S1 was varied and the number of reinforcements obtained for correct responses to S1 was allowed to covary. In the second procedure, the probability of S1 was again varied but the distribution of reinforcements between the two choices was kept equal. In the third procedure, probability of S1 was held constant while the distribution of reinforcements was varied between the two choices. Changes in response bias were a function of variations in the relative reinforcement ratio for the choice responses and not a function of variations in the probability of stimulus presentation. Discriminability remained constant across the three procedures.