Independence of reinforcer amount and delay: The generalized matching law and self-control in humans

Abstract Six adult human females chose between pairs of different amounts and delays of reinforcement scheduled according to concurrent variable-interval schedules. Consistent with previous results obtained using pigeons, the present findings were described by a version of the generalized matching law in which the relative effects of amount and delay on preference are independent and multiplicative. Therefore adult humans' greater tendency than pigeons to show self-control (i.e., adult humans' greater tendency to choose larger, more delayed over smaller, less delayed reinforcers) cannot be explained by an interaction between the effects of reinforcer amount and delay. Further, the generalized matching law can be a useful tool in scaling adult humans' sensitivity to variation in relative reinforcer amount and variation in relative reinforcer delay.

[1]  Douglas J. Navarick,et al.  Self-control and choice in humans: Effects of video game playing as a positive reinforcer , 1984 .

[2]  H Rachlin,et al.  Commitment, choice and self-control. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  Monica L. Rodriguez,et al.  Independence of the amount and delay ratios in the generalized matching law , 1986 .

[4]  W. Mischel,et al.  Theory and research on the antecedents of self-imposed delay of reward. , 1966, Progress in experimental personality research.

[5]  A. Logue,et al.  Choice in a self-control paradigm with human subjects: Effects of changeover delay duration ☆ , 1987 .

[6]  M. Davison.  Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  M Davison,et al.  Preference in concurrent variable-interval fixed-ratio schedules. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  L Green,et al.  Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Choice between Rewards Differing in Amount and Delay: toward a Choice Model of Self Control , 2022 .

[9]  A. Logue,et al.  Matching and maximizing in a self-control paradigm using human subjects , 1990 .

[10]  H. L. Miller.  Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  G. Ainslie.  Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. , 1975, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  H. Rachlin,et al.  Impulsiveness in pigeons living in the experimental chamber , 1988 .

[13]  A W Logue,et al.  Choice in a self-control paradigm: Quantification of experience-based differences. , 1984, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  B. A. Matthews,et al.  Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  R. L. Hamblin,et al.  Matching as a multivariate power law: Frequency of behavior versus frequency and magnitude of reinforcement , 1977 .

[16]  D. Stubbs,et al.  Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[17]  N. V. Poll,et al.  Self-control in male and female rats , 1988 .

[18]  B. A. Matthews,et al.  Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[20]  Jack P. Gibbs,et al.  Crime and Human Nature by James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985. , 1985 .

[21]  G. Ainslie,et al.  Impulse control in pigeons. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[22]  A. Logue.  Research on self-control: An integrating framework , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[23]  A. Logue,et al.  Self-control in adult humans: variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay. , 1986, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  M Davison,et al.  Independence of response force and reinforcement rate on concurrent variable-interval schedule performance. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[25]  A. Poling,et al.  Self-control in mentally retarded adolescents: choice as a function of amount and delay of reinforcement. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[26]  J. W. Schneider.  Reinforcer effectiveness as a function of reinforcer rate and magnitude: a comparison of concurrent performances. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  B. Maher,et al.  Progress in experimental personality research , 1964 .

[28]  J. E. Mazur,et al.  Choice in a "self-control" paradigm: effects of a fading procedure. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[29]  A C CATANIA,et al.  Experimental control of superstitious responding inhumans. , 1963, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[30]  Richard J. Herrnstein,et al.  Crime and Human Nature , 1985 .

[31]  B. Alsop,et al.  Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate. , 1988, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[32]  A. Logue,et al.  Self-control and impulsiveness in adult humans when food is the reinforcer , 1991, Appetite.

[33]  P. Killeen.  Incentive theory: IV. Magnitude of reward. , 1985, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[34]  Masato Ito,et al.  Choice and amount of reinforcement in rats , 1985 .

[35]  H S HOFFMAN,et al.  A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. , 1962, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[36]  A. W. Logue,et al.  Humans' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount: Effects of the method of reinforcer delivery. , 1990, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[37]  A. Neuringer,et al.  Self-control in pigeons under the Mischel paradigm. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[38]  R. Herrnstein.  On the law of effect. , 1970, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[39]  J C Todorov,et al.  Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[40]  Masato Ito,et al.  Choice behavior of rats in a concurrent-chains schedule: Amount and delay of reinforcement. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[41]  H. Rachlin.  Why do People Gamble and Keep Gambling despite Heavy Losses? , 1990 .

[42]  W M Baum,et al.  On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and undermatching. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.