Incentive theory: II. Models for choice.

Incentive theory is extended to account for concurrent chained schedules of reinforcement. The basic model consists of additive contributions from the primary and secondary effects of reinforcers, which serve to direct the behavior activated by reinforcement. The activation is proportional to the rate of reinforcement and interacts multiplicatively with the directive effects. The two free parameters are q, the slope of the delay of reinforcement gradient, whose value is constant across many experiments, and b, a bias parameter. The model is shown to provide an excellent description of all results from studies that have varied the terminal-link schedules, and of many of the results from studies that have varied initial-link schedules. The model is extended to diverse modifications of the terminal links, such as varied amount of reinforcement, varied signaling of the terminal-link schedules, and segmentation of the terminal-link schedules. It is demonstrated that incentive theory provides an accurate and integrated account of many of the phenomena of choice.

[1]  E Fantino,et al.  Effects of reinforcer duration on responding in two-link chained interval schedules. , 1982, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[2]  P. Killeen Preference for fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement. , 1970, 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]  R. W. Richards,et al.  Preference for signaled versus unsignaled reinforcement delay in concurrent-chain schedules. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[5]  E Fantino,et al.  Uncertainty reduction, conditioned reinforcement, and observing. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[6]  G S REYNOLDS,et al.  Potency of Conditioned Reinforcers Based on Food and on Food and Punishment , 1963, Science.

[7]  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 .

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

[9]  A. Tomie,et al.  The retarding effect of the TRC response-elimination procedure upon the subsequent reacquisition of autoshaping: Comparison of between- and within-subjects assessment procedures and the evaluation of the role of background contextual stimuli , 1981 .

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

[11]  J W Donahoe,et al.  Some implications of a relational principle of reinforcement. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[13]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE TO REWARD1 , 1972 .

[14]  E. Hearst,et al.  Bridging temporal gaps between CS and US in autoshaping: insertion of other stimuli before, during, and after CS. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

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

[16]  Carl D. Cheney,et al.  Observing Behavior and Information , 1980 .

[17]  J. C. McMillan,et al.  Average uncertainty as a determinant of observing behavior. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  J Moore,et al.  Choice and number of reinforcers. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[19]  A C Catania,et al.  Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[21]  E Fantino,et al.  An appraisal of preference for multiple versus mixed schedules. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[23]  J D Findley,et al.  Preference and Switching under Concurrent Scheduling. , 1958, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[24]  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.

[25]  J. Staddon,et al.  The "supersitition" experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. , 1971 .

[26]  M. Davison,et al.  Concurrent schedules: undermatching and control by previous experimental conditions. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[27]  L. Green Preference as a function of the correlation between stimuli and reinforcement outcomes , 1980 .

[28]  Wyckoff Lb The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. Part I. , 1952 .

[29]  M R D'Amato,et al.  Note on delay-interval illumination effects on retention in monkeys (Cebus apella). , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[31]  R. Shull,et al.  Delay or rate of food delivery as determiners of response rate. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[32]  S. B. Kendall Variations of two temporal parameters in observing response procedures , 1975 .

[33]  R. Herrnstein SECONDARY REINFORCEMENT AND RATE OF PRIMARY REINFORCEMENT. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[34]  Alice R. Jwaideh,et al.  Conditioned reinforcement as a function of duration of stimulus. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[35]  M C Davison,et al.  Preference for fixed-interval schedules: effects of unequal initial links. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[36]  N Squires,et al.  A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. , 1971, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[37]  M C Davison,et al.  Preference for fixed-interval schedules: effects of initial-link length. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[38]  H Rachlin,et al.  Pigeons' preferences for stimulus information: effects of amount of information. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[39]  P. Killeen On the measurement of reinforcement frequency in the study of preference. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[40]  R J Summers,et al.  Effect of delay-interval stimuli on delayed symbolic matching to sample in the pigeon. , 1981, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[41]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement , 1981 .

[42]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Choice and delay of reinforcement. , 1967, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[43]  Ben A. Williams,et al.  Information effects on the response-reinforcer association , 1978 .

[44]  J A Nevin,et al.  Conditioned reinforcement and choice. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[45]  M. Marr,et al.  Choice and reinforcement delay. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[46]  Marvin Z. Deluty Similarities of the Matching Law to Other Models of Conditioning , 1977 .

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

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

[49]  E Fantino,et al.  Relative delay of reinforcement and choice. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[50]  A. Catania,et al.  Freedom and knowledge: an experimental analysis of preference in pigeons. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[51]  S. Hanson,et al.  Arousal: its genesis and manifestation as response rate. , 1978, Psychological review.

[52]  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.

[53]  M. Davison Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[54]  M C Davison,et al.  Preference for fixed-interval schedules: an alternative model. , 1973, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[55]  R. Rescorla Effect of a stimulus intervening between CS and US in autoshaping. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.