OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR THEORIES OF PROBABILISTIC REINFORCEMENT

In three experiments, pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck at a red key led to a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. A peck at a green key led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In Experiments 1 and 2, the intertrial interval was varied across conditions, and these variations had no systematic effects on choice. In Experiment 3, the stimuli that followed a choice of the red key differed across conditions. In some conditions, a red houselight was presented for 5 s after each choice of the red key. In other conditions, the red houselight was present on reinforced trials but not on nonreinforced trials. Subjects exhibited greater preference for the red key in the latter case. The results were used to evaluate four different theories of probabilistic reinforcement. The results were most consistent with the view that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is determined by the total time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. According to this view, probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers that are delivered after variable delays.

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

[2]  Sara J. Shettleworth,et al.  Risk aversion in pigeons. , 1987 .

[3]  M. Machina,et al.  Decision-Making in the Presence of Risk , 1987, Science.

[4]  J. E. Mazur Fixed and variable ratios and delays: further tests of an equivalence rule. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

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

[6]  J. E. Mazur Probability and delay of reinforcement as factors in discrete-trial choice. , 1985, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[7]  J. E. Mazur Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. , 1984 .

[8]  D. Rider Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  T. Caraco,et al.  An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  R. Cicerone,et al.  Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[12]  S. H. Chung,et al.  Effects of delayed reinforcement in a concurrent situation. , 1965, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  F A LOGAN,et al.  DECISION MAKING BY RATS: UNCERTAIN OUTCOME CHOICES. , 1965, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[14]  R. Herrnstein APERIODICITY AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  H. Rachlin,et al.  JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR , 2005 .

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

[17]  J. Gibbon,et al.  Cognition and behavior in studies of choice , 1986 .

[18]  J. Kagel,et al.  Animals' Choices over Uncertain Outcomes: Some Initial Experimental Results , 1985 .

[19]  John S. Young Discrete-trial choice in pigeons: Effects of reinforcer magnitude. , 1981, Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

[20]  Belen Chavez,et al.  Notes on : Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision Under Risk ( Kahneman and Tversky 1979 ) Modigliani Group : , 2012 .

[21]  E Fantino,et al.  Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. , 1967, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.