Choice and reinforcement delay

Previous studies of choice between two delayed reinforcers have indicated that the relative immediacy of the reinforcer is a major determinant of the relative frequency of responding. Parallel studies of choice between two interresponse times have found exceptions to this generality. The present study looked at the choice by pigeons between two delays, one of which was always four times longer than the other, but whose absolute durations were varied across conditions. The results indicated that choice is not uniquely determined by the relative immediacy of reinforcement, but that absolute delays are also involved. Models for concurrent chained schedules appear to be more applicable to the present data than the matching relation; however, these too failed to predict choice for long delays.     

An investigation of peak shift and behavioral contrast for autoshaped and operant behavior.

Instrumental treadle press and nonreinforced key peck responses were monitored during discrimination training and generalization testing in pigeons on positive and negative reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 1, six pigeons pressed a treadle for food on a multiple variable-interval extinction schedule. In Experiment 2, three pigeons pressed a treadle to avoid shock on a multiple free-operant avoidance extinction schedule. Different color keylights signaled S+ and S- components. Some positive behavioral contrast occurred during discrimination training, but the effect was small. Pecking occurred to the S+ keylight in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2. On stimulus generalization tests, all subjects displayed a positive peak shift when pressing the treadle for food or to avoid shock. However, peak shift was not found for nonreinforced "autopecks" on the stimulus key, although an area shift was observed in Experiment 1. This is the first demonstration of peak shift for pigeons pressing treadles and the only reliable demonstration of peak shift when negative reinforcement maintained responding. These results, in combination with previous demonstrations of peak shift for rats pressing levers and pigeons pecking keys, indicate that peak shift is a general by-product of operant discrimination learning, since it occurs across a variety of the organisms, responses, and reinforcers.     

Delay or rate of food delivery as determiners of response rate

Pigeons were confronted with two keys: a green food key and a white changeover key. Food became available for a peck to the green key after variable intervals of time (mean = 113 seconds). A single peck on the changeover key changed the color of the food key to red for a fixed period of time during which the timing of the variable-interval schedule in green was suspended and the switching option eliminated and after which the conditions associated with green were reinstated. In Experiment 1 a single food presentation was obtainable during each red-key period after a minimum delay timed from the switch. This delay and the duration of the red-key period were held constant during a condition but varied between conditions (delay = 2.5, 7.5, 15, or 30 seconds; red-period duration = 30, 60, 120, 240, or 480 seconds). In Experiment 2 additional food presentations were scheduled during a 240-second red-key period with the delay to the first food delivery held constant at 30 seconds, and the delays to later food deliveries varied over conditions. Considering the data from both experiments, the rate of switching to red was a decreasing function of the delay to the first food, the delay to the second food, and perhaps the delay to the third food after a switch. There was no clear evidence that the rate of food in the red-key period made an independent contribution. The ordering of response rates among conditions was consistent with the view that each food presentation after a response adds an incremental effect to the rate of the response and that each food presentation's contribution is a decreasing function of its delay timed from the response.     

Self-control in pigeons under the Mischel paradigm

Walter Mischel studied self-control in preschool children in the following manner: if the child waited for an interval to end, he or she received the more preferred of two reinforcers; if the child responded to terminate the interval by ringing a bell, the less preferred reinforcer was given. We used an analogous procedure to study self-control in pigeons: if the bird waited for a trial to end, it received the more preferred reinforcer; if the bird terminated the trial by pecking a key, the less preferred reinforcer was given. We explored the effects on self-control of a number of variables analogous to those studied by Mischel and co-workers, e.g., presence versus absence of reinforcers, of alternative responses, and of stimuli during the wait interval; prior experience of the subjects; and test paradigm. The results obtained with pigeons paralleled the results obtained by Mischel with human children.     

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay

Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement was studied with a concurrent-chain procedure. Lever pressing by rats in concurrently available variable-interval 60-second initial links occasionally produced mutually exclusive terminal-link reinforcement delays. A constant delay of reinforcement (either 15 seconds or 30 seconds) composed one terminal link and mixed delays (.2 second and twice the value of the constant delay) were arranged in the other terminal link. The proportion of .2-second delays in the mixed-delay terminal link took on values of 0, .1, .25, .5, .75, .9, and 1.0 over experimental conditions. Based on relative rates of responding in the initial links, preference for the mixed delays was a negatively accelerated function of the proportion of short, mixed delays. Three of five rats preferred the mixed delays to the constant delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .1 or higher, and all five rats preferred the mixed delays when the proportion of short, mixed delays was .25 or higher. Neither Squires and Fantino's (1971) delay-reduction model of choice nor a model based on the harmonic mean reinforcement delay provided a close estimate of choice proportions over the range of short-delay proportions studied. The delay-reduction model underestimated choice for the mixed delays at low and intermediate proportions of short delays, and the harmonic-mean-delay model overestimated choice for the mixed delays at intermediate and high proportions of short delays.     

Concurrent schedules: Spatial separation of response alternatives

Four pigeons were exposed to independent concurrent variable-interval 20-second variable-interval 60-second schedules of reinforcement. A transparent partition was inserted midway between the two response keys. The length of the partition was systematically manipulated. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate in Experiment 1. Over-matching was observed with a partition length of 20 centimeters. In Experiment 2 a four-second limited hold was added to the schedules. Increasing partition length produced a decrease in changeover rate that exceeded the decrease observed in Experiment 1. This manipulation produced nearly exclusive choice of the variable-interval 20-second component. The present results, together with results obtained in related research, suggest that deviation from matching is a function of procedural variables that determine the consequences of a changeover response.     

Subjective probability and delay.

Human subjects indicated their preference between a hypothetical $1,000 reward available with various probabilities or delays and a certain reward of variable amount available immediately. The function relating the amount of the certain-immediate reward subjectively equivalent to the delayed $1,000 reward had the same general shape (hyperbolic) as the function found by Mazur (1987) to describe pigeons' delay discounting. The function relating the certain-immediate amount of money subjectively equivalent to the probabilistic $1,000 reward was also hyperbolic, provided that the stated probability was transformed to odds against winning. In a second experiment, when human subjects chose between a delayed $1,000 reward and a probabilistic $1,000 reward, delay was proportional to the same odds-against transformation of the probability to which it was subjectively equivalent.     

Violations of stochastic transitivity on concurrent chains: Implications for theories of choice

The concurrent-chains procedure has been used to measure how choice depends on various aspects of reinforcement, such as its delay and its magnitude. Navarick and Fantino (1972, 1974, 1975) have found that choice in this procedure can violate the condition of stochastic transitivity that is required if a unidimensional scale for reinforcements is to be possible. It is shown in this paper that two simple unidimensional models of choice on concurrent chains can produce violations of stochastic transitivity. It is argued that such violations may result from the complex contingencies of the concurrent-chains procedure.     

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.     

Performance of humans in concurrent avoidance/positive-reinforcement schedules

Performance maintained under concurrent schedules consisting of a variable-interval avoidance component and a variable-interval positive-reinforcement component was studied in three human subjects using points exchangeable for money as the reinforcer. The rate of responding in the avoidance component increased, and the rate of responding in the positive-reinforcement component declined, as a function of the frequency of point-losses avoided in the avoidance component. The performance of all three subjects conformed to equations proposed by Herrnstein to describe behavior in concurrent schedules. The logarithms of the ratios of the response rates in the two components, and the logarithms of the ratios of the times spent in the two components, were linearly related to the logarithms of the ratios of the frequency of loss avoidance in the avoidance component to the frequency of reinforcement in the positive-reinforcement component. When a changeover delay of 5.0 sec was imposed, the slopes of the linear functions were close to 1.0 in the case of two subjects, whereas the third subject exhibited significant undermatching. For two subjects the changeover delay was then reduced to 2.0 sec; in both cases the slopes of the linear functions were lower than under the 5.0-sec condition. One subject participated in a third phase, in which no changeover delay was imposed; there was a further reduction in the slopes of the linear functions.