Discrimination, discounting and impulsivity: a role for an informational constraint.

Feeding animals often prefer small, quickly delivered rewards over larger, more delayed rewards. Students of feeding behaviour typically explain this behaviour by saying that animals discount delayed benefits. Temporal discounting implies that delayed benefits are worth less than immediate benefits. This paper presents a new explanation of short-sighted decision-making called the discrimination advantage model that does not rely on discounting. A new model that includes several possible causes of discounting is developed. This model has many interesting features, but it cannot account for two empirical results: the strength of the 'discounting' effect and the fact that the time between choice presentations (the intertrial interval or ITI) has no effect. This leads to the conclusion that although discounting may be important it is probably not a complete explanation of the experimental facts. In the discrimination advantage model the observation that the ITI does not affect choice is seen as a strategy to make a cleaner discrimination between delayed alternatives in a noisy world. A simple example shows that when discrimination is imperfect a short-sighted choice rule can, in some situations, lead to a higher long-term rate than a rule that actually compares long-term rates. This idea is developed and extended in several ways.

[1]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Time, rate, and conditioning. , 2000, Psychological review.

[2]  D. Stephens,et al.  Preference and Profitability: Theory and Experiment , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[3]  J. E. Mazur An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. , 1987 .

[4]  L. Green,et al.  Preference reversal and self control: choice as a function of reward amount and delay , 1981 .

[5]  Peter D. Sozou,et al.  On hyperbolic discounting and uncertain hazard rates , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  D. Stephens,et al.  INTERRUPTIONS, TRADEOFFS, AND TEMPORAL DISCOUNTING , 1996 .

[7]  D. Stephens,et al.  The adaptive value of preference for immediacy: when shortsighted rules have farsighted consequences , 2001 .

[8]  Alex Kacelnik,et al.  Rate currencies and the foraging starling: the fallacy of the averages revisited , 1996 .

[9]  David W. Stephens Cumulative benefit games: achieving cooperation when players discount the future. , 2000, Journal of theoretical biology.

[10]  Joel Myerson,et al.  Exponential Versus Hyperbolic Discounting of Delayed Outcomes: Risk and Waiting Time , 1996 .

[11]  J. E. Mazur,et al.  Influences of delay and rate of reinforcement on discrete-trial choice. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[12]  David W. Stephens,et al.  Error and Discounting in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma , 1995 .

[13]  M. Commons The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value , 2013 .

[14]  J M McNamara,et al.  A general framework for understanding the effects of variability and interruptions on foraging behaviour , 1987, Acta biotheoretica.

[15]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects , 1975 .

[16]  G. Gescheider Psychophysics : method, theory, and application , 1985 .

[17]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  Risky Theories—The Effects of Variance on Foraging Decisions , 1996 .

[18]  W M Baum,et al.  Choice as time allocation. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  J. Kagel,et al.  When foragers discount the future: constraint or adaptation? , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[20]  A. Kacelnik,et al.  Starlings’ preferences for predictable and unpredictable delays to food , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[21]  R. Church,et al.  Scalar expectancy theory and choice between delayed rewards. , 1988, Psychological review.

[22]  J. Gibbon Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. , 1977 .