Negative reinforcement and choice in humans

Abstract Participants chose between reinforcement schedules differing in delay and/or duration of noise offset. In Experiment 1 it was found that (1) immediate reinforcement was preferred to delayed reinforcement when amounts (durations) of reinforcement were equal; (2) a relatively large reinforcer was preferred to a smaller one when both reinforcers were obtained immediately; and (3) preference for an immediate, small reinforcer versus a delayed, large reinforcer increased as the delay preceding the large reinforcer increased, a sign of “impulsivity”. In Experiment 2, the schedules differed in amount or delay and equal intervals were added either to the constant parameter or the varied parameter. A shift from virtually exclusive preference to indifference occurred in the latter case but not the former, a result supporting a model of self-control that assumes that the value of a schedule depends on the ratio of amount and delay, and that choice between schedules depends on the ratio of these values.

[1]  D Macewen,et al.  The effects of terminal-link fixed-interval and variable-interval schedules on responding under concurrent chained schedules. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  David A. Eckerman,et al.  An experimental analysis of impulsivity and impulse control in humans. , 1980 .

[3]  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 .

[4]  W M Baum,et al.  Time allocation in human vigilance. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  E. Fantino,et al.  Effects on choice of reinforcement delay and conditioned reinforcement. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

[8]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  CHOICE FOR PERIODIC SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT1 , 1970 .

[9]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  Self-control and general models of choice. , 1976 .

[10]  F A LOGAN,et al.  DECISION MAKING BY RATS: DELAY VERSUS AMOUNT OF REWARD. , 1965, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[11]  P. Lewis,et al.  Matching with a key-peck response in concurrent negative reinforcement schedules. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  P Killeen,et al.  The matching law. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  M. Z. Deluty,et al.  Self-control and impulsiveness involving aversive events. , 1978 .

[14]  Robert L. Ten Eyck,et al.  Effects of rate of reinforcement-time upon concurrent operant performance , 1970 .

[15]  W M Baum,et al.  Time allocation and negative reinforcement. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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