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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AinslieG. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior21, 485–489.
2.
AinslieG.HerrnsteinR. J. (1981). Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement.Animal Learning and Behavior9, 476–482.
3.
BaumW. M.RachlinH. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior12, 861–874.
4.
BradshawC. M.SzabadiE. (1989). Central neurotransmitter systems and the control of operant behaviour by natural positive reinforcers.The neuropharmacological basis of reward.LiebmanJ. M.CooperJ.Oxford: Oxford University Press320–376.
5.
BradshawC. M.SzbadiE. (1992). Choice between delayed reinforcers in a discretetrials schedule: the effect of deprivation level.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology44B, 1–16.
6.
Christensen-SzalanskiJ. J. J.GoldbergA. D.AndersonM. E.MitchellT. R. (1980). Deprivation, delay of reinforcement and the selection of behavioral strategies.Animal Behaviour28, 341–346.
7.
DavisonM.McCarthyD. (1988). The matching lawHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8.
de VilliersP. A. (1977). Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect.Handbook of operant behavior.HonigW. K.StaddonJ. E. R.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall233–287.
9.
EisenbergerR.MastersonF. A.LowmanK. (1982). Effects of previous delay of reward, generalized effort, and deprivation on impulsiveness.Learning and Motivation13, 378–389.
10.
EisenbergerR.MastersonF. A. (1987). Effects of prior learning and current motivation on self-control.Quantitative analyses of behavior, Vol. V: The effect of delay and intervening events.CommonsM. L.MazurJ. E.NevinJ. A.RachlinH.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.267–282.
11.
GreenL.SnydermanM. (1980). Choice between rewards differing in amount and delay: toward a choice model of self-control.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior34, 135–147.
12.
HerrnsteinR. J. (1981). Self-control as response strength.Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour.BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.LoweC. F.Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland3–20.
13.
HeymanG. M.MonaghanM. M. (1987). The effect of changes in the response requirement and deprivation on the parameters of the matching law equation: new data and review.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes13, 384–394.
14.
KilleenP. R.FantinoE. (1990). Unification of models for choice between delayed reinforcers.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior53, 189–200.
15.
LogueA. W.RodriguezM. L.Pena-CorrealT. E.MauroB. C. (1984). Choice in self-control paradigm: quantification of experienced-based differences.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior41, 53–67.
16.
LogueA. W.Pena-CorrealT. E. (1985). The effect of food deprivation on self-control.Behavioural Processes10, 355–368.
17.
LogueA. W.ChavarroA. (1987). Effect on choice of absolute and relative values of reinforcer delay, amount, and frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes13, 280–297.
18.
LogueA. W. (1988). Research on self-control: An integrated framework.Behavioral and Brain Sciences11, 665–709.
19.
LogueA. W.ChavarroA.RachlinH.ReederR. W. (1988). Impulsiveness in pigeons living in the experimental chamber.Animal Learning and Behavior16, 31–39.
20.
MazurJ. E. (1984). Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes10, 426–436.
21.
MazurJ. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement.Quantitative analyses of behavior, Vol. V: The effect of delay and intervening events.CommonsM. L.MazurJ. E.NevinJ. A.RachlinH.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.55–73.
22.
MazurJ. E.HerrnsteinR. J. (1988). On the functions relating delay, reinforcer value and behavior.Behavioral and Brain Sciences11, 690–691.
23.
NavarickD. J.FantinoE. (1976). Self-control and general models of choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes2, 75–87.
24.
RachlinH. C.GreenL. (1972). Commitment, choice and self-control.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior17, 15–22.
25.
SnydermanM. (1983). Optimal prey selection: the effects of food deprivation.Behaviour Analysis Letters3, 359–369.
26.
VaughanW. M. (1985). Choice: a local analysis.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior43, 383–405.
