Impulsiveness without discounting: the ecological rationality hypothesis

Observed animal impulsiveness challenges ideas from foraging theory about the fitness value of food rewards, and may play a role in important behavioural phenomena such as cooperation and addiction. Behavioural ecologists usually invoke temporal discounting to explain the evolution of animal impulsiveness. According to the discounting hypothesis, delay reduces the fitness value of the delayed food. We develop an alternative model for the evolution of impulsiveness that does not require discounting. We show that impulsive or short–sighted rules can maximize long–term rates of food intake. The advantages of impulsive rules come from two sources. First, naturally occurring choices have a foreground–background structure that reduces the long–term cost of impulsiveness. Second, impulsive rules have a discrimination advantage because they tend to compare smaller quantities. Discounting contributes little to this result. Although we find that impulsive rules are optimal in a simple foreground–background choice situation in the absence of discounting, in contrast we do not find comparable impulsiveness in binary choice situations even when there is strong discounting.

[1]  M. Rilling,et al.  Reinforcement delay and reinforcement rate as determinants of schedule preference , 1965 .

[2]  E. Fantino Choice and rate of reinforcement. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

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

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

[7]  E Fantino,et al.  Choice: Some quantitative relations. , 1983, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

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

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

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

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

[13]  Alan R. Rogers,et al.  Evolution of Time Preference by Natural Selection , 1994 .

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

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

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

[17]  J. E. Mazur Choice, delay, probability, and conditioned reinforcement , 1997 .

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

[19]  P M Todd,et al.  Précis of Simple heuristics that make us smart , 2000, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  J. Shoven,et al.  Gamma Discounting , 2001 .

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

[22]  J. E. Mazur Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. , 2001, Psychological review.

[23]  D. Stephens,et al.  Discrimination, discounting and impulsivity: a role for an informational constraint. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[24]  R. Seymour,et al.  Augmented discounting: interaction between ageing and time–preference behaviour , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.