|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 CROSS-SPECIES ANALYSIS OF CHOIC ES BETWEEN REIN FORCER SEQUENCES By LEONARDO ANDRADE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010
2 2010 Leonardo Andrade
3 To Patricia
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, ment or, and friend, Timothy Hackenberg, for providing me the opportunity to study in the United States, and for his valuable guidance. I would like to thank my committe e members, Marc Branch, Timothy Vollmer, David Smit h, and Drake Morgan for their recommendations and insights. I would like to thank my friends Jennifer Rusak, Carl a Lagorio, and Rachelle Yankelevitz for conducting many of the experim ental sessions and for their input on this study. I would like to thank my friends Anne Macaskill and Katie Salsgiver for helping me with computer programming and data analysis ess ential in completing the experiments described here. I would like to thank Anth ony DeFulio and Jorge Reyes, two wonderful people who have always been there for me. Their friendship was essential during these five years. I would like to particularly thank my father and my mother for their unconditional support, encour agement, and love. Without them, none of my accomplishments would have been possible. I would like to thank my brother Rodrigo, and my sisters Mariana and Joana for being a cons tant source of reinforcement in my life. Finally, I would like to deeply thank my best friend and loving wif e Patricia. I would never have gone this far if she was not by my side.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... 9 CHA PTER 1 GENERAL INTR ODUCTION .................................................................................. 11 Introduc tion ............................................................................................................. 11 Sequences of Reinforc ers ....................................................................................... 15 Sequences of Reinforcers and the Hyperbolic-D ecay Model .................................. 19 Cross-Species Comparison .................................................................................... 22 Goals of the Present Study ..................................................................................... 24 2 EXPERIMENT 1 ..................................................................................................... 29 Introduc tion ............................................................................................................. 29 Methods.................................................................................................................. 30 Subjects............................................................................................................ 30 Apparat us......................................................................................................... 30 Training............................................................................................................ 31 Token-Exchange Training ................................................................................ 31 Token-Producti on Training ............................................................................... 31 Experimental Procedur e ................................................................................... 32 Results and Discussion........................................................................................... 34 3 EXPERIMENT 2 ..................................................................................................... 44 Introduc tion ............................................................................................................. 44 Methods.................................................................................................................. 45 Subjects............................................................................................................ 45 Material, Location, and Equi pment ................................................................... 45 Procedur e......................................................................................................... 46 Sequences of Reinforc ement ........................................................................... 49 Delay Sensit ivity Test ....................................................................................... 49 Questionnaire................................................................................................... 50 Results and Discussion........................................................................................... 50 Choice Pa tterns ................................................................................................ 51 Questionnaire Results ...................................................................................... 54
6 4 EXPERIMENT 3 ..................................................................................................... 64 Introduc tion ............................................................................................................. 64 Methods.................................................................................................................. 65 Subjects............................................................................................................ 65 Apparat us......................................................................................................... 65 Procedur e......................................................................................................... 65 Results and Discussion........................................................................................... 67 5 GENERAL DI SCUSSION ....................................................................................... 78 Cross-species Analysis of Choice ........................................................................... 79 Limitations and Fu ture Dir ections ........................................................................... 82 APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................. 84 LIST OF RE FERENCES ............................................................................................... 86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 92
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Mean proportion of choices (initial -link) and mean number of responses on the termina l-link for each alternative in Experiment 1......................................... 433-1 Sequence of conditions for eac h subject in Ex periment 2.................................. 614-1 Experimental conditions im plemented in Experiment 3...................................... 74
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Hyperbolic-decay value of WOR, IMP, and S TD sequen ces of reinforcement... 282-1 Diagram of the terminal-links im plemented for each sequence in Experiment 1......................................................................................................................... 392-2 Schematic of the Immedi ate Consumpti on condition.......................................... 402-3 Schematic of the Dela yed Consumpti on condition............................................. 412-4 Mean proportion of choices for each alternative in Experiment 1....................... 423-1 Picture of the screen with all the vi sual components used in the concurrent chain sche dule.................................................................................................... 583-2 Screen shot of the choi ce phase (initi al-link)...................................................... 583-3 Screen shot of t he token exch ange phas e......................................................... 593-4 Diagram of the terminal-links im plemented for each sequence in Experiment 2......................................................................................................................... 593-5 Diagram of the terminal-links implemented during delay s ensitivity test............. 603-6 Mean proportion of choices for each alternative in Ex periment 2....................... 623-7 Percentage of answers A and B gi ven to the questionn aire questions............... 634-1 Mean proportion of choices for each alte rnative in Experiment 3 for P883 and P942................................................................................................................... 754-2 Mean proportion of choices for each alte rnative in Experiment 3 for P702 and P894................................................................................................................... 764-3 Mean proportion of choices on the richer alternative in function of its relative value................................................................................................................... 77
9 Abstract of Dissertation Pr esented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for t he Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CROSS-SPECIES ANALYSIS OF CHOIC ES BETWEEN REIN FORCER SEQUENCES By Leonardo Andrade May 2010 Chair: Timothy D. Hackenberg Major: Psychology When given choices between sequences of reinforcers distributed over time, humans and non-humans show different pattern s of preference: hum ans tend to prefer sequences that improve over time whereas non-humans tend to prefer sequences that worsen over time (i.e., sequences with more-h ighly valued reinforcers available early). The differences in performance may be due to fundamental differences in the way reinforcer sequences contribute to reinforce val ue. Alternatively, the differences may be attributed to methodological differences, specific ally in the nature of the reinforcers used with humans (hypothetical or conditioned reinforcer s) and non-humans (consumable reinforcers). A total of three experiment s were conducted. Experiments 1 and 2 were aimed at comparing choice patterns across pigeons and humans between sequences of token and consumable reinforcers that prov ided the same overall rate, delivered at different delays. The results obtained in Ex periment 1 and 2 showed generally similar choice patterns across species, with both preferring sequences with the shortest delay to the initial reinforcer in the series. Ex periment 3 was an extension of Experiment 1 and was aimed at further assessing pigeons sensitiv ity to selectively delayed reinforcers in
10 a sequence. Overall, results obtained in this study are broadly consistent with models of temporal discounting expanded to include the impac t of sequences of delayed reinforcers acting in parallel fr om the time of the choice.
11 CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION Introduction How organisms allocate behavior among diffe rent sources of reinforcement has been the subject matter of a wide range of sci entific endeavors. From ethologists studying animals in naturalistic settings deciding among alternative food patches to economists analyzing consumers preferences, the quest for unraveling the effects of relevant variables upon an organisms choices has been an important issue for behavioral, biological, and social sciences in general. The alloc ation of behavior among concurrent sources of reinforcement can be conceptualized as choice (Herrnstein, 1970; Pierce & Cheney, 2008; Skinner, 1950). From this point of view, choice is not m ental mechanism; instead, choice is simply a description of how behavior is allocated am ong concurrent sources of reinforcement (Herrnstein, 1970; Pierce & Cheney, 2008; Skinner 1950). Herrnstein (1970), for example, argues that even in relatively simp le environments, such as a Skinner box with a single key, the organism is choosing bet ween the reinforcers produced by pecking the key and the other reinforcers derived from all other possible actions. In his words: Even in a simple environment like a single-response operant-conditioning chamber, the occurrence of the respons e is interwoven wit h other, albeit unknown, responses, the relative fr equencies of which must conform to the same general laws t hat are at work whenev er there are multiple alternativesNo matter how impover ished the environment, the subject will always have distractions available, other things to engage its activity and attention, even if thes e are no more than its own body, with its itches, irritations, and other calls for serv ice. (Herrnstein, 1970, p. 254-55) Choice is an important topic and has rece ived attention from many different scientific disciplines because choices (or decisions) typically produce important and often conflicting delayed consequences not onl y for the individual but for society as
12 well. Studying, saving money for retirem ent, recycling, exercisi ng, abstaining from drugs; all of these are examples of c hoices that involve important delayed consequences that are often in conflict with more immediate reinforcer alternatives. The term intertemporal choice is frequently used to refer to these types of choices which involve some kind of trade-off between costs and benefits occurri ng at different points in time (Frederick, Loewenstein, & ODonoghue, 2002) A critical component in this type of choice is delay discounting, the proce ss typically invoked to explain why organisms seem to disproportionally overvalue reinforcer s arranged closer in time (Berns, Laibson, & Loewenstein, 2007; for a review re fer to Frederick, et al., 2002). The interval between a response and the contingent reinforcer has been acknowledged as fundamental in learning, discrimination, and choice since the inception of Psychology as a scientific fiel d. The importance of reinforcer delay probably dates since Thorndike (1913), as can be noted from t he following quote: As a corollary to the law of effect we have the fact that the strengthening effect of satisfyingness varies with its intimacy with the bond in question as well as with the degree of satisfyi ngness. Such intimacy, or closeness of connection between the satisfyi ng state of affairs and the bond it affects, may be due to close temporal sequence or attentiveness to the situation and response. Other thi ngs being equal, the same degree of satisfyingness will act more st rongly on a bond made two seconds previously than on one made two minutes previously, more strongly on a bond between a situation and a respons e attended to closely than on a bond equally remote in time in an unnoticed series. (Thorndike, 1913, p. 172-173) The relevance of reinforcer delay was elaborated by Hull (1943), assuming a central role in his theory of reinforcem ent generalization and goal gradients. Although Hull did not use the term delay discounti ng, he used empirical data from experiments involving manipulation of the delay to rein forcement on choice (e.g., Anderson, 1932;
13 Perin, 1943; Wolfe, 1934; in Hull 1943) in support of what was essentially an exponential discounting function. The term delay discounting is generally used today to refer to the decrease in subjective value of a reinforcer (or commodity in Economics) as a function of time. As the delay to contact the reinforcer increases the present value of a given reinforcer decreases (i.e., is discounted). Economists refe r to this functional relation as positive time discounting, one part of the Discoun ted Utility (DU) model (Samuelson, 1937) used to make predictions of intertemporal choi ces in relation to economic assets. It is beyond the purposes of this paper to provide a full description of the DU model; suffice to say that it is an exponential model that incorporates a free par ameter representing a fixed discount rate. As a resul t, it predicts that the subjecti ve value of a reinforcer (or commodity) always decreases in the sa me proportion as its delay. Among the assumptions of the DU model, it is important to highlight fo r the purpose of the present paper, the following two: (1) Pref erences do not change over time ; they are irreversible. That is, if an organism s hows preference for outcome a at time x over outcome b at y it is assumed that preference for a over b will remain constant regardless of any increment or decrement in time, as long as this change in time is common to both outcomes. (termed time consistency by economists); (2) The overall value of a sequence of outcomes is equal to the sum of the present discounted value of each member of the sequence; that is, each outcome in the series is viewed as independent and additive (for a review, see Fr ederick, et al., 2002), Although the DU model remains the st andard model in economics, empirical findings have shown violations of some of the key predictions of the model. Economists
14 call these violations anoma lies. Probably the most robus t such anomaly comes from the empirical findings related to assumption (1) above, which show that preference is not static or time consistent, and that it does reverse when a common delay is added or subtracted from the choice alte rnatives. Interestingly, thes e findings were first obtained not by economists but by experimental psychologists using non-human subjects (Ainslie, 1974, 1975; Rachlin & Green, 1972). Within the Rachlin and Green study, pigeons given a choice between a smaller sooner reinforcer (SSR) and a larger later reinforcer (LLR) predominantly chose the SSR alternative. However, when an additional constant delay was added to both alternatives, pr eference shifted toward the LLR alternative. This finding has been rep licated with pigeons (Ainslie & Herrnstein, 1981; Green, Fisher, Perlow, & Sherman, 1981) and humans (Green, Fristoe, & Myerson, 1994; Kirby & Herrnstein, 1995; Mi llar & Navarick, 1984; Solnick, Kannenberg, Eckerman, & Waller, 1980). As a result, additional models of delay di scounting have been proposed, the most popular of which are ones based on a hyperboloid function. Such functions can accommodate preference reversals, and have been shown to provide a good fit to the data (Green & Myerson, 2004; Kirby, 1997; Mazur, 2001). The main feature of the hyperbolic models is that the discounting rate of the function decreases more sharply in the short run compared to the long run. In other words, the curve follows a non-lineardecreasing function that gets st eeper with the proximit y of the reinforcer. A hyperbolic model that has been widely used is the following model proposed by Mazur (1984): KD A V 1 (1-1)
15 where V is the present value of a reinforcer delivered at delay D A represents the amount or the undiscounted va lue of a reinforcer, and K is a free parameter, a constant that determines how sharp the value of a rein forcer decreases over time. According to Mazur (2001), the term value refers to the strength of a reinforcer, and the model predicts that when faced with a choice between reinforcer alternatives, organisms will choose the alternative that has the highest value at the instant of choice. Sequences of Reinforcers The great majority of studies on choice hav e been focused on single outcomes. However, as noted by Kirby (2006), rather than occurring all at once at a single moment in time, the consequenc es of our choices are more often scattered over future time periods (p.273). Interest in the systematic in vestigation of the e ffects of multiple outcomes on choice is fairly recent. With a few exceptions, it wa s not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that publication of re search involving sequences of outcomes began to appear in the literature. The general lack of interest in reinforcer sequences is likely due to the assumption that the princi ples related to individual outcomes were extendable to series of outcomes as well (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000). That is, the generality or external validity was assumed rather than empiri cally tested. As a result, not much is known about sequences of rein forcers and the possible interactive effects that the reinforcers that ar e part of a sequence may have with each other (Kirby, 2006). A temporal sequence can be defined as a series of outcomes spaced over time (Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993). The m anner in which events/outcomes are conceptualized and separated in time varies ac ross studies. It may therefore be more appropriate to view changes of events in time as lying on a continuum. For instance, a sequence can be conceptualized as a series of discrete events (or segments) clearly
16 separated by time (e.g., specific amounts of annual income to be received in the following 5 years), or it can be viewed as a more cohesive or unitary segment on which the patterns of a given stimulus dimension change continuously over time (e.g., patterns or streams of varying sound in tensities, or continuous change in water temperature). A significant study involving choices between sequences of outcomes was carried out by Loewenstein and Prelec (1993 ), in which human subjects answered a questionnaire containing sequence s of qualitatively different hypothetical reinforcers, arranged in different orders. The authors manipulated the number of outcomes on each sequence (from 2 up to 5 outcomes) as well as the inter-event duration. In one set of questions, for example, subjects were first asked whether they preferred to have dinner at a fancy French restaurant or at a lo cal Greek restaurant. Subsequently, the participants who preferred the French re staurant were asked the following two questions: (1) whether they would prefer to have dinner at the French restaurant on Friday in 1 month or on Friday in 2 m onths; and (2) whether th ey preferred to have dinner at the French restaurant on Friday in 1 month and dinner at the Greek restaurant on Friday in 2 months; or dinner at the Greek restauran t on Friday in 1 month and dinner at the French restaurant on Friday in 2 months. (Those who initially preferred the Greek restaurant received the converse choices.) The results of this study showed an interesting and seemingly dichotomous pattern of responses. When the question involv ed a single outcome, th e majority of the subjects preferred to have the French dinner sooner rather later (question numbered (1) above). However, when the question involved two outcomes, the Greek and the French restaurants (question numbered (2) above), the same participants chose to defer their
17 favorite restaurant (French) and have the Greek dinner sooner. This pattern of choices favoring sequences that improve in time was replicated in the same study with questions involving weekends with friends versus weekends with an abrasive aunt, and other questions containing up to 5 outcome s with varying degrees of hypothetical pleasure. There have been other studies with humans which provide further support for preference for sequences with improving trends. The great majority of studies in this line of research involve some kind of hy pothetical monetary outcomes, such as hypothetical payment (Loewenstein & Sicherm an, 1991; Hsee, Abelson, Salovey, 1991; Matsumoto, Peecher, & Reech, 2000; Guyse Keller, & Eppel, 2002; Read & Powell, 2002), gambling (Ross & Simonson, 1991; Read & Powell, 2002), and stock markets (Ariely & Zauberman, 2000; Matsumoto et al., 2000). In addition to money, research on sequences of outcomes have also assessed the effects of other types of hypothetical scenarios, such as hypothetical grades (Hsee et al., 1991); vacations and meals in restaurants (Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993; Matsumoto et al., 2000; Montgomery & Unnava, 2009); trends in t he quality of the environment (Guyse et al., 2002); health (Chapman, 2000; Guyse et al., 2002); and subjec tive experiences of discomfort (Varey & Kahneman, 1992). The few studies usin g real outcomes involved earning points exchangeable for money (Schmitt & Kem per,1996), playing video games (Ross & Simonson, 1991); listening to music (Mont gomery & Unnava, 2009); aversive noise (Ariely & Zauberman, 2000; Schreibber & Kahneman, 2000; Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000); aversive cold temperatures (Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber, & Redelmeier, 1993); and aversive heat and mechani cal pressure (Ariely, 1998).
18 In general, the results of the studies ci ted above indicate that human subjects prefer sequences comprised of outcomes containing an improving/increasing trend over sequences of outcomes containing worsening/ declining trends or sequences in which the components remain constant through time It is worth emphasizing this result because it indicates that humans discount sequences of outco mes in a different fashion than they do single outcomes. Contrary to single-outcome contingencies in which individuals typically show positive time di scounting, preference for improving sequences may actually show no discounting, or even negative discounting (Chapman, 2000; Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993). Loewenstein and Prelec (1993) argue t hat preference for improvement is an overdete rmined phenomenon in humans. T hey claim that when the context of the sequences is highlighted prior to the choice, and the individuals attention is drawn to the sequential nature of events, an effect of the interaction between the components the gestalt properties emerge. Thus, their result s and interpretation challenge separable formulations such as the weighted utility model common in economics (Samuelson, 1937) because they i ndicate that the overall value of a sequence is not equal to the sum of individual components. The results of the studies involving intertemporal seque nces described thus far in the present study should be interpreted with caution due to the experimental protocol adopted by them. The stimulus presented to the participants (i.e., the independent variable) is typically hypothetical situations described in sentences or depicted via some kind of graphic representation or diagram, in which the si ze of the geometric figures represent the intensity of some property/dim ension of stimulus events. The dependent measure is comprised of choices, ranking, or rating of these stimu li. When real stimuli
19 are used, subjects are typically exposed to the stimulus first and then are required to rank or rate it on some arbitrary scale after the exposure. In some studies, the participant is also required to provide ra tings on-line (continuously) in addition to the posterior rating. This is done so that the experimenter can com pare the participants global and local evaluations of the ev ents. When choice is used as a dependent variable with real events, choice is acce ssed via deception. That is, after being exposed to some intertemporal sequenc es, participants are asked to choose a sequence to be re-exposed at t he end of the experiment, but in fact they are never exposed to the choice they commit (e.g., Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000; Schreiber & Kahneman, 2000; Kahneman et al., 1993). Theref ore, most of the time, what some authors call choice or preference should be seen more as kind of pseudo-choice or pseudo-preference. Sequences of Reinforcers and the Hyperbolic-Decay Model Preference for an improving over a wors ening sequenc e thus runs counter to predictions made by most psychologica l and economic theories based on delay discounting (Brunner, 1999). These theories predict that individuals should always choose the alternative that produces the best outcome first, followed by reinforcers with decreasing values (i.e., worsening/declini ng sequence), rather than the reverse. The following hyperbolic equation, proposed by Mazur (1986) has been used in choice studies with multiple reinforc ers with humans and non-humans (Brunner & Gibbon, 1995; Brunner, 1999; Kirby, 2006; Mazur, 1986, 2007; S hull, Mellon, & Sharp, 1990). This model is an extrapolation of the Equation 1-1, and is represented algebraically as
20 n iKDi A V11 (1-2) where V represents the value of the sequence of reinforcers delivered after some delay D ; n represents the number of re inforcers in the sequence, A is the undiscounted value of a reinforcer (the value of the reinforcer if it was delivered immediately), and K is a free parameter that determines how sharply V decreases in direct function of D. In short, according to this hyperbolic model, the discounted value of a sequence of reinforcers is equal to the sum of the present discounted values of each individual reinforcer in the sequence (this form of calc ulating the hyperbolic value of sequence has been called parallel discounting by Brunner & Gibbon, 1995). In other words, the value of a sequence is simply the sum of the va lue of the individu al members of the sequence, as if they were separable and independent (see Brunner & Gibbon, 1995, for alternative hyperbolic delay discounting models within sequences). In a sequence comprised of four reinforcers, for inst ance, the value of the sequence would be calculated as follows: 41 4 31 3 21 2 11 1 KD A KD A KD A KD A V (1-3) This model is very similar to the one proposed earlier by McDiarmid and Rilling (1965), in which they calculated the value of a sequence as the sum of the immediacies of each reinforcer in the series (i.e., the reci procal of the delays). It is important to note that both McDiarmid and Ril ling (1965) and the DU model in economics makes the same assumption of the hyperbolic-decay model in relation to the independent contribution of each member of the sequence.
21 This hyperbolic-decay equation, has been test ed with multiple reinforcers in rats (Brunner, 1999; Brunner & Gibbon, 1995; Mazur, 2007), pigeons (Mazur, 1986, Shull et. al, 1990), and humans (Kirby, 2006), and the result s have shown that it provides a very good fit to the data (for contrasting result s see Moore, 1979, 1982). The studies conducted by Mazur (1986, 2007), Brunner and Gibbon (1995), and to some extent Kirby (2006) are important to emphasize bec ause they tested the predictions of the parallel model using a titrat ion procedure, a technique very suitable for testing the quantitative properties and predicti ons of mathematical models. It is also important to note, however, that with the exception of Brunner and Gibbon (1995) and Brunner (1999, Exp.1), all the other studies which evaluated the predictions of the parallel model cited above, analyzed preferenc e among sequences that c ontained unequal number of reinforcers. This is important to no te because although these studies have shown evidence that the value of subsequent elements in the sequence is added (and independent), the num ber of reinforcers or rate of reinforcers delivered was not equal between the alternative sequences and these variables could have had some confounding effect on choice that was not accounted for by this model. Research with non-human animals wit h multiple and equal numbers of reinforcers is relatively sca rce. In one of the few st udies along these lines, Brunner (1999, Exp. 1) investigated rats choi ces between sequences that improved or worsened in time. More specifically, rats were given repeated choices between a sequence in which the inter-pellet delay incr eased over time (worsening sequence) and an alternative sequence in which the inter-pel let delay decreased over time (improving sequence). Contrary to the results f ound with humans and qualitatively different
22 hypothetical reinforcers (e.g., Loewenstein & Sicherman, 1991; Loewestein & Prelec, 1993), but consistent with delay discounting m odels such as Equations 1-2 and 1-3, rats strongly preferred the worsening sequence. Cross-Species Comparison Although an increasing num ber of studies have shown that humans, too, discount delayed event s (e.g., Gr een, Fry, & Myerson, 1994; So lnick, et. al, 1980; Estle, Green, Myerson, & Holt, 2007; Logue, Pea-Co rreal, Rodriguez, & Kabela, 1986; Kirby, 2006), some data indicate that human choice may be less delay sensitive than choice in other species. Other result s suggest that the degree to wh ich discounting occurs varies depending on the kind of reinforc er used (i.e., consumable reinforcer, points exchanged for money, hypothetical reinforcers; see Navarick, 2004, for a discussion). In general, an estimated discount rate (i.e., the K value) of approximately 0.014 is found with humans (Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991), whereas a value of approximately 1 is reported with pigeons (Mazur, 1984, 1987). In studies of self-control type choices (i.e., studies involving choice between a smaller sooner reinforcer and a larger later reinforcer), non-humans (typically birds and rats) have been shown to be highly impulsive (delay sensitive), predominantly choosing smaller-sooner reinforcers (Ainslie, 1974; Logue & Pea-Correal, 1984; Mazur & Logue, 1978). Conversely, humans tend to choose the larger-later reinforcer (Logue et al., 1986; Logue, King, Chavarro, & Volpe, 1990; Flora & Pavlik, 1992; Hyten, Maden, & Field, 1994; see review by Logue, 1988). In general, human performance is well accounted by a rate maximizing rule of the following form: T A V (1-4)
23 Where V represents the value of a given course of action, A is the size of a reinforcer, and T is the time between reinforcers. The main difference between the hy perbolic discount and the global maximization model is in the way reinforcer variables are averaged. For the hyperbolic discount model, value is a decr easing nonlinear function of re inforcer delay, while that for global maximization model, value is a nondiscounted arit hmetic average of aggregate reinforcer per unit time. The underlying cause for the distinct results obtained across humans and nonhumans on choice studies is an important question that is still unanswered. The following reasons may be raised to account fo r that: species qualitative differences, such as human higher cognitive abilities or ve rbal behavior that ma kes them capable of making more rational decisions (Horne & Lowe, 1993); or methodological differences, more precisely, lack of methodological equiva lence in studies across species. One procedural difference is the type of rein forcer used. In studies with humans, hypothetical reinforcers are typically used, while with non-humans, actual reinforcers (typically, food) are used. Another procedur al difference is the format for presenting choices. With humans, hypothetical choice s are presented once and the subject is not exposed to real outcomes, while non-humans, on the hand, are repeatedly exposed to choices that produce real outcomes. This r epeated exposure, then, allows for choices to be affected by experienc e with the task. Instead of hypothetical reinforcers, some experiments with humans have used points exchangeable for money at the end of the session (e.g., Flora & Pavlik, 1992; Hyten, et. al, 1994; Logue et. al, 1986). In this type of procedure, some of the
24 methodological differences pointed out above, such as the consumable nature of the reinforcers and the lack of opportunity to be affected by the experience with the task, may not apply. However, one significant difference remains: the delay to the consumption of the reinforcer In non-humans experiments, reinforcer access typically occurs at the end of each choice trial, while in human experiments that incorporate the point-money system, the access to the reinfo rcer usually occurs at the end of the session or at the end of the ex periment. In other words, the moment on which the opportunity to consume the reinforcer is made available differs in studies conducted in humans and non-humans. With humans, the opport unity to consume the reinforcer is usually more delayed in the session compar ed with non-human experim ents. Empirical evidence of the strong control over choice responses exerted by the time frame over which reinforcers are accessed has been am ply demonstrated by Hyten et al. (1994) with humans and by Jackson and Hackenb erg (1996) with pigeons. Jackson and Hackenberg (1996), for instance, have shown that pi geons choice was largely controlled by the moment on which conditioned reinforcers (tokens) could be exchanged within the session. When tokens could be exchanged immediately after they were obtained, pigeons showed the pattern of choice s typically found in non-humans, that is, they exhibited strong prefer ence for the smaller-sooner rein forcer. However, when the opportunity to exchange tokens was made more delayed in the session (condition that served as analogue to human experiments) pi geons showed preference for the largerlater reinforcer, a pattern consistent with t he typical performance found in humans. Goals of the Present Study In order to make valid anima l-human extensions or com parisons, it is essential that the experimental contingenc ies ar e methodologically equivalent. This
25 methodological standardization is one of the br oad aims of the present study. Here, we attempt to bring the choice procedures used with humans and pigeons into better alignment. To do so, we made the typica l experimental procedure used with pigeons more human-like by introducing conditi oned reinforcers (tokens) that were exchangeable for consumable reinforcers (food) at different times of the session. To facilitate inter-species comparisons, we also implemented tokens as conditioned reinforcers in the human experi ment that were also exchangea ble at different times of the session for consumable reinforcers. But rather than food, hum ans exchanged their tokens for video clips from popular television shows, a reinforcer that has proven quite effective in laboratory research with humans (Hackenberg & Pietras, 2000; Lagorio & Hackenberg, 2010; Locey, Pietras, & Ha ckenberg, 2009; Navarick, 1996, 1998). Three experiments were conducted to asse ss the effects of intertemporal delays of a sequence of multiple reinforcers on c hoice. In the first two experiments, we investigated the pattern of choice ac ross species (pigeons and humans) between sequences of token and consumable reinforcer s that provided the same overall rate, delivered at different temporal pattern ing. A sequence with increasing interreinforcement delays, Worsening (WOR ), a sequence with decreasing interreinforcement delays, Improving (IMP), and a sequence comprised of fixed interreinforcement delays, Standard (STD), we re implemented in Experiment 1 (pigeons) and 2 (humans). In addition, two economic c ontexts under which the tokens earned could be exchanged for consumable reinforcers were also incorporated in the study. In one economic context, Delayed Consumption (DC), token exchange opportunities were made available after the delivery of the last reinforcer in the sequence. In the other
26 context, Immediate Consum ption (IC), token exchange opportunities were made available immediately after each token deliv ery. Thus, two independent variables were manipulated across conditions in Experiment 1 and 2: the intertemporal delay within the sequence, and the delay to the exchange period. In addition, this study was also aimed to evaluate the ordinal predictions of the hyperbolic decay model and the global maximization. To better illustrate the predictions of the hyperbolic model, the value of individual reinforcers in each sequence, as well as thei r total sum in the IC condition is shown in Figure 1-1. These values were plotted assuming the free parameter K value being equal to 1, a value typically reported with pi geons (Mazur, 1984, 1987). For simplicity, the parameter A was also arbitrarily set equal to 1. (This was done because reinforcer amount was not manipulated and remained cons tant throughout this study.) As depicted in the bottom right graph, the hyperbolic delay discounting pr edicts differential preference in the IC condition. According to the predictions of Equation 1-2, the WOR sequence should be preferred over both of the other sequences, and the STD sequence should be preferred over the IMP sequence. In the DC c onditions, on the other hand, this model predicts indifference because rega rdless of the specific sequence, food is made available at the same time (at the end of the terminal link). Global maximization model (Equation 1-4) predicts indifference across all conditions because reinforcer variables are averaged arithmetically. As can be seen in Figure 1-1, the hyperbolic-decay model predicts that the first reinforcer in the series exerts a strong contro l over preference. The extent to which the delays to subsequent reinforcers in a seque nce control choice is still largely unknown
27 and this was the purpose of Experiment 3. Using a similar procedure of Experiment 1, Experiment 3 was aimed at assessing pigeon s sensitivity to selectively delayed reinforcers in a sequence.
28 0102030405060Value 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0102030405060Value 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0102030405060Value 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 WOR 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 STDIMPValue (total)Time (s) Worsening Standard Improving Time (s) Time (s) AB C D Sequence Figure 1-1. Hyperbolic-decay value of WOR, IMP, and STD sequences of reinforcement. A) Hyperbolic value of each reinforcer in the Worsening sequence; B) Hyperbolic value of each reinforcer in the Im proving sequence; C) Hyperbolic value of each reinforcer in the Standard sequence; D) Total value of each sequence (in the IC condition). In A, B, and C, the x-axis refers to the delay to each reinforcer in the series.
29 CHAPTER 2 EXPERIMENT 1 Introduction Brunner (1999, Exp. 1) found that when ra ts are given repeated choices between a sequenc e in which the inter-pellet delay increased over time and an alternative sequence in which the inter-pellet delay decreas ed over time, rats pr eferred the former. Using pigeons as subjects, the present expe riment also investigated choices between sequences of equal number of reinforcers in which the inter-reinforcement delay increased (worsening sequence) or decreased (improving sequence). In addition, a third sequence comprised of reinforcers de livered at fixed delays (standard sequence) was implemented. The choices occurred in t he context of a discret e-trial procedure. Choices in the initial link produced sequences comprised of token and consumable reinforcers delivered at different temporal pa tterning but the same overall rate in the terminal-link. Another variable of interest was the economic context, which determined when the tokens could be exchanged for consumable reinforcer s. In the ImmediateConsumption conditions, tok en-exchange opportunities were given immediately after the delivery of each token, whereas in t he Delayed-Consumption conditions, tokenexchange opportunities were given after the delivery of the last token in the sequence. In addition to the manipulation of t he inter-reinforcement delay and exchange opportunity, the broader goal of this study was to compare choices between reinforcer sequences across species. In order to make valid animalhuman extensions or comparisons, it is essential that the expe rimental contingencies are methodologically as equivalent as possible. The experimental procedures adopted in this experiment with
30 pigeons and the following one with humans wa s an attempt to bring the methods into greater alignment. Methods Subjects Four nave male White Carneau pigeons ( Colum ba livia ) served as subjects. The birds were housed individually in a humidity and temperature-controlled colony room where they had continuous access to wate r and grit. The lights in the colony room were on from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm. The pigeons were maintained at approximately 83% of their free-feeding weights via additional post-session feeding when necessary. Apparatus A standard operant conditioning c hamber with a modified stimulus panel served as experimental location. The working space measured 35 cm high by 35 cm wide by 30.5 cm long. The stimulus panel contai ned three horizontally-aligned plastic keys, located 8.7 cm from the t op. Each key had a circumference of 7.85 cm and were located 5.7 cm apart from each other. The center key was trans-illuminated red or white, while the two side keys were transilluminated white, green, or yellow. The minimum force required to operate each key was approximately 0.3 N. A row of 12 horizontally-aligned and evenly spaced red stimulus lights was inserted in the panel at 4.5 cm below the ceiling and served as tokens. The circumference of each token was approximately 4.71 cm. Only t he four centermost token lights were used and were lit sequentially from left to right or from right to left cont ingent on response on the left or right key, respectively. A white houselight centrally located above the row of tokens remained on throughout the session. A f ood hopper delivered the primary reinforcer, mixed grain, accessed through an aperture m easuring 5.8 cm by 5 cm, and centrally
31 located 10.5 cm above the floor. A whit e light illuminated the hopper while it was suspended and food was being presented. The experiment was controlled through a microcomputer and MED-PC interface located in an adjacent room. Training All pigeons were first exposed to 1 or 2 days of adaptation to the chamber, followed by sessions of magazine training, key-peck shaping, token-exchange training, and token-production training. After adaptat ion, pigeons were magazine trained, in which the food hopper was raised at irregular intervals, until they reliably approached and ate from the hopper. At this point, t he center key was illuminated red and pecking was reinforced with food via the met hod of successive approximations. Token-Exchange Training When key-pecking had been establis hed, t he pigeons were exposed to sessions in which the tokens were paired with food. This was accomplished by illuminating the center key and the four cent ermost tokens. Each peck on the center red (exchange) key produced 3-s access to food and a short (. 04 s) beep, while turning off the center key and a single token. Immediately after the food hopper was lowere d, the red center key was re-illuminated and a new cycle began. Each subsequent exchange response produced the same events, until all 4 tokens had been exchanged for food. The tokens were always exchanged in seque nce (either from left to righ t, or vice versa), with the starting position determined rand omly each 4-token cycle. Sessions lasted for 12 trials (48 reinforcers). Token-Production Training Following token-exc hange trai ning, the pigeons were trained to produce tokens by pecking the side (white) keys. On each cycle, the left or right key was illuminated
32 white, and a single peck produced 4 tokens simultaneously, a short beep, and the center (exchange) key. Each peck on the exchange key produced food, as described above, until all 4 tokens had been exchan ged, after which a new cycle began with one of the side keys lit white. The position of the active ke y (left or right) was determined randomly in each cycle, with t he restriction that each occurred 6 times in each session. Sessions lasted for 12 cycles. Experimental Procedure Following training, t he pigeons were given repeated choices betwe en sequences of tokens and food using a concurrent-chains schedule with two links. The initial link consisted of a concurrent fixed-ratio 1 fixed-ratio 1 (Conc FR1 FR1) in the presence of white keys. Thus, a single peck on either white side key produced one of two terminallink stimulia green key or a yellow key. The terminal link was comprised of a sequence of delays to each of 4 tokens and an exchange schedule. Each token presentation was accompanied by a brief beep. The tokens were presented from left to right (if the initial-link response had been on the left key) or from right to left (if the initiallink response had been on the right key). Each terminal link was followed by a 5-s intertrial interval (ITI) during which only the houselight remained on. At the beginning of each choice cycle, the center key was lit white, a single peck on which produced the initial-link stimuli. This in itiation response was implement ed to reduce the likelihood of position biases by ensuring that the in itial links began with a response that was equidistant to the side keys. Figure 2-1 shows a schematic of the terminal-link events. Three different sequences providing the same overall rate of reinforcement but different temporal patterning were used. All sequences includ ed four tokens in the terminal link spread
33 over the same overall time-s pan, timed from terminal-link ons et. More specifically, the tokens were presented response-independently in the terminal-link and the total time on which all four were presented wa s held constant at 60 s. The Standard (STD) sequence contained four tokens presented at equal inter-temporal delays of 15 s. In the Worsening (WOR) sequence the delays between succ essive tokens increased (5 s, 10 s, 15 s, and 30 s), whereas in the Improving (IMP) sequence the delays between successive tokens decreased (30 s, 15 s, 10 s, and 5 s). It is import ant to note that the inter-temporal delay between token presentati on, as well as over all duration of the terminal link depicted in Figure 2-1 below, does not include the token exchange and food consumption periods. Besides manipulation of the inter-temporal delay of token presentation, the other major independent variable was the scheduling of the token-exchange period. Tokens were either exchanged for food after the delivery of the four th token in the sequence Delayed Consumption (DC) or immediately after t he delivery of each individual token within the sequence Immediate Consumption (IC). The token-exchange schedule was signaled by the darkening of the side keys and the illumination of the center red key. During the IC conditions, when the token and exchange key was presented, the delay timer for the next token delivery in the sequence was st opped until the token earned was exchanged. After t he completion of the token ex change (precisely after the food hopper was lowered), the ti mer that controlled the delay to the next token was reset and the key pecked in the initial-link was re-illuminated until the presentation of the next token. The exchange schedule was id entical to the exchange schedule used during training, except that each token wa s exchanged for 2.5 s rather than 3 s access
34 to food to maintain stable running weights. Refer to Figures 2-2 and 2-3 below for a schematic of the IC and DC conditions, respectively. Sessions were scheduled once per day, se ven days per week. A session was composed of 12 cycles, 2 forced-choice and 10 free-choice cycles. On forced-choice cycles, only one of the two initial-link keys was lit. Such cycles were implemented to ensure adequate exposure to both alternatives of the concurrent pair. The order of presentation of each forced-choice alter native was randomly determined but both alternatives were always pres ented once during the initial two cycles each session. The final 10 cycles each session were free-choice cycles, in which both alternatives were available. Table 2-1 shows the order of conditi ons and the number of sessions conducted at each. Some conditions were replicated to assess reliability of preferences. There were also frequent reversals of the contingencies to assess position and color biases. In addition, the position of each alter native sequence was counter-balanced across subjects. Because Pigeon P894 developed a side bias duri ng the experiment, it was exposed to two additional conditions with a higher ratio of forcedchoice: free-choice trials aimed to rectify the bias. Conditions remained in effect for a minimum of 12 sessions and until the proportion of initiallink responses was deemed stable according to the following criteria: (a) absence of incr easing or decreasing trend across 5 consecutive sessions; and (b) absence of the highest or lowe st point in the condition. Results and Discussion Figure 2-4 shows the mean pr oportion of choices for th e stable (last 5) sessions of each experimental condition. Each graph represents the performance of a single
35 pigeon, whose number is located at the top-left corner. Bars on the left and right side of each graph represent the choices allocated to the left and to the right side alternatives, respectively. The filled bars depict the propor tion of responses during the IC conditions and the unfilled bars the proporti on of responses during the DC condition. The labels on the left correspond to the actual sequence allocated on the left choice alternative, and the labels on the right in dicate the sequence allocated to the right alternative. During the experiment each sequence was paired with the other two sequences and many reversals and replications were conducted. To facilitate the visual analysis, each pairwise comparison was grouped and separated by the dotted lines. This is important to note because the order of conditions displa yed in Figure 2-4 do not reflect the exact order on which the pigeons were exposed to some of the experimental conditions. (The order of conditions is shown in Table 2-1.) Error bars indi cate standard deviations from the means of the last 5 sessions of each expe rimental condition. The labels in bold show which sequence of the pair contained the highest hyperbolic value. In the first pairwise comparison STD ve rsus IMP condition Pigeons P883 and P942 strongly preferred (>.90 choice prop ortions) the STD sequence. Pigeon P702 showed preference for the IM P condition during the first exposure, but preferred the STD condition in the subsequent two side reversal cond itions. Subject P894 showed a strong bias toward the right key in the fi rst two experimental conditions, so it was exposed to two additional conditions with a higher ratio of forced-choice: free-choice trials to rectify the bias. After exposure to these training conditions, Pigeon P894 preferred the STD sequence when it was allocated on the left and on the right side (third and fourth conditions). It is important to note that this subject was exposed to fewer
36 numbers of sessions during the second and third condition and 6 sessions, respectively. When the WOR was pitted against the ST D sequence, all pigeons exhibited strong preferences for the WOR sequence. For Pigeons P702, P894, and P942 such preferences were seen in every condition a nd replication; for Pigeon 883, preference for WOR was seen in three of four conditions. Specifically, the occasion on which P883 preferred STD over WOR was in the conditi on immediately following the DC condition. In the third pairwise comparison WOR versus IMP all subjects showed a strong preference for the WOR sequence on both occasions in which they were exposed to these conditions. This was the cr itical comparison, as far as reconciling prior results is concerned. The results ar e extremely clear and co nsistent with prior results conducted with nonhuman subjects: St rong preference for the sequence with the shorter initial delay to reinforcement. In general, during the DC conditions pigeons distributed choices more equally across alternative sequences. There was also more variability within the last five sessions, as seen by the larger error bars w hen compared to all the other experimental conditions. In the fourth pairwise co mparison WOR versus STD (DC condition), Pigeons P883, P702, and P894 emitted a larger proportion of responses toward the WOR sequence, whereas P942 allocated a larger proportion of responses toward the STD sequence. When IMP was pitted against the WOR sequenc e, Pigeon P883 showed preference for WOR wh ereas the other birds distri buted their responses more equally between both alternatives (i.e., proportions were approximately .5).
37 Preference for the WOR s equence during DC conditions might be explained based on the conditioned reinforcer functions of the tokens. However, it is important to note that no replications or reversals were conducted during the DC conditions. Since there was no replicati on, it becomes important to ana lyze performance during the DC conditions in the transition from the immedi ately preceding conditi on (Table 2-1). The only difference from the prec eding condition wa s the moment on which the exchange period was made available, ev en the sides on which each sequence was located was identical. It was decided not to change the location of the alternatives during the transition from the IC to DC conditions because we wanted to introduce a single additional variable (the DC co ndition), instead of two addit ional variables (the DC condition and the side reversal), when movi ng to a new condition. The results show that with the exception of Pigeon P942, there were clear carryover effectsa tendency to allocate more responses on the side as sociated with the preferred alternative from the previous condition. Daily analysis of the performance during this condition indicated that the contingency was exer ting progressively less contro l over the behavior. It was decided not to replicate the DC condition wit h the sides reversed because of the risk of loosing experimental control in subsequent conditi ons. Therefore, it is possible that the preference for the WOR sequence shown by some subjects during the DC conditions was due to the conditioned reinfo rcer effects of the tokens. However, the results are confounded with carryover effects from previous conditions. Future studies might try to disentangle the effects produced from the preceding conditi ons in order to assess the degree to which responses duri ng the DC conditions was ind eed being controlled by the conditioned reinforcers.
38 An analysis of the responses on the ke y that remained illuminated in the terminal-link was conducted and t he results are depicted in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 shows the mean proportion of choices (initial-link) and the mean number of responses on the illuminated key during the te rminal-link. The means are fr om last 5 sessions of each experimental condition. All subjects responded in the illuminated key during the terminal-link, but the number of responses was largely variable across conditions and across subjects. P942 was the subject who most frequently re sponded during the terminal-link, emitting up to 693 responses in preferred alternative. An analysis of choice latencies in relation to preference and the sequence relative value was also conducted for each of the subjects. No orderly relation was found, so the data are not shown. According to the predictions of the hyperbolic model, pigeons should prefer the WOR sequence over the other two sequences, and should prefer the STD sequence over the IMP sequence. Excluding the DC conditions, pigeons showed preference for the WOR sequence in 20 out of 21 occasions and showed preference for the sequence with the higher hyperbolic value in 29 out of 33 occasions. Therefore, the results obtained in Experiment 1 provide strong s upport for the ordinal predictions of the hyperbolic decay model over the predictions of the global maxi mization model, which predicts indifference across all experimental conditions.
39 Figure 2-1. Diagram of the terminal-links implemented for each sequence in Experiment 1. The horiz ontal lines show the te rminal link with time going from left to right. Each vertical bar represents the temporal placement of tokens timed from terminal-link onset: 15 s, 30 s, 45 s and 60 s in the Standard sequence, 5 s, 15 s, 30 s, and 60 s in the Worsening sequence, and 30 s, 45 s, 55 s and 60 s in the Improving sequence. Time (s) 10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s STD IMP WOR 0s
40 Figure 2-2. Schematic of t he Immediate Consumption condition. The letters d1, d2, d3, d4 refer to the delays to the presentation of the first, second, third, and fourth token; and e1, e2, e3, e4, re fer to the exchange of the first, second, third, and fourth token in the sequence. d1 d2 d3 d4 d1 d2 d3 d4 e1 e2 e3 e4 e1 e2 e3 e4 ITI ITI Trial Initiation Initial Link (choice)
41 Figure 2-3. Schematic of t he Delayed Consumption condition. The letters d1, d2, d3, d4 refer to the delays to the presentation of the first, second, third, and fourth token; and e1, e2, e3, e4, re fer to the exchange of the first, second, third, and fourth token in the sequence. d1 d2 d3 d4 d1 d2 d3 d4 e1, e2, e3, e4 ITI Trial Initiation Initial Link (choice)
42 -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 P883 STD IMP STD IMP STD STD STD STD WOR WOR WOR WOR WOR WOR IMP IMP STD WOR WOR IMP -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 WOR IMP STDP702 STD STD IMP IMP STD WOR WOR WOR STD STD IMP WOR IMP STD WOR WOR IMP -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 STD STD STD STD STD WOR WOR WOR STD STD IMP IMP WOR WOR STDWOR WOR IMP IMP IMP IMP IMPP942 -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 STD IMP IMP STD STD STD WOR WOR WOR STD WOR WOR IMP IMP STD IMP WOR WORConditions ConditionsProportion Left Proportion Left Proportion Right Proportion Right IC DC P894 Figure 2-4. Mean proportion of choices for each alternative in Experiment 1. Ba rs on the left and on the right side depict the proportions from the last 5 sessions on the left and right side, respectively. Filled bars depict IC conditions and unfilled bars depict DC conditions. See text for further details.
43 Table 2-1. Mean proportion of choices (ini tial-link) and mean number of responses on the terminal-link for each alternative in Ex periment 1. Data obtained from the last 5 sessions of each condition. Sub.Cond.Sess.Sequence Sequence 883122STD 15.4IMP 0 0 219IMP 0.060.4STD 0.942.2 312WOR17.8STD00 416IMP 0.04 0WOR0.960.6 531IMP(DC)0.1 8WOR(DC)0.94.2 612WOR0.020.2STD 0.98 0 713STD00WOR12.2 819WOR10.6STD00 919WOR(DC)0.8813.6STD(DC)0.221.2 1018IMP 0 0WOR 10.2 942118IMP 0 0STD 1694 226STD 1686IMP 0 0 313STD 0 0WOR 1306 412WOR 1471IMP 0 0 525WOR(DC)0.4221.6IMP(DC)0.58518 618STD 0 0WOR 1656 715WOR0.98176STD 0.0210.6 818WOR(DC)0.22 2STD(DC)0.78129 913IMP 0 0WOR 1422 702112STD 0 0IMP 14.2 213IMP 00STD12.2 317STD 0.98 3IMP 0.02 0 412STD00WOR10.2 516WOR 15.8IMP 0 0 641WOR(DC)0.563.4IMP(DC)0.443.6 723STD 0.02 0WOR0.98 0 821WOR0.98 0STD 0.02 0 936WOR(DC)0.680.8STD(DC)0.320.6 1016IMP 0 0WOR 10.2 894112IMP 0 0STD 19.6 25STD 0 0IMP 115.8 36STD 0.8630.4IMP 0.141.4 418IMP 00STD112 520WOR0.980.8STD 0.02 0 618IMP 00WOR12.2 716IMP(DC)0.4449.2WOR(DC)0.56 5 814WOR 0.926.4STD 0.10.8 917STD 0.06 0WOR0.9413.8 1020STD(DC)0.32.4WOR(DC)0.711.4 1116WOR 10.2IMP 0 0 Left Alternative Right Alternative Prop. ChoicesResp.T-L Resp T-L Prop. Choices
44 CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENT 2 Introduction Studies have shown that humans pref er improving rather than worsening sequences. This finding presents formidable theoretical and empirical challenges. Theoretically, the findings run counter to most psychological and economic models based on delay discounting; empirically, they are inconsistent with the results found with non-human subjects (Brunner, 1999; Exp. 1). Although preference for improving sequences has been consistently reported in t he literature using humans as subjects, the vast majority of these studies used hypothetical outcomes (e.g., Chapman, 2000; Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993; Loewenstein & Sic herman, 1991). Within the few studies that involved real events (e.g., Arie ly & Loewenstein, 2000; Schreiber & Kahneman, 2000; Kahneman et al., 1993), choice was asse ssed via deception. Th at is, participants were led to believe that they were going to be exposed to sequences of events at the end of experiment, but they we re never exposed to the out comes of the choices they made. One of the main goals of the experiment presented in this section was to analyze human preference using a procedure that allowed subjects to repeatedly choose between sequences of outcomes and be r epeatedly exposed to the contingent outcomes of their responses. The procedure implemented in this experiment was analogous to Experiment 1 so that perform ance across species could be compared. The subjects chose between sequences in which the inter-reinforcement delay increased (worsening), decreased (improving) or remained fixed (standard) in the terminal link. As in Experiment 1, choice s produced tokens and consumable reinforcers in the terminal-link, but instead of food, popular TV shows were used as reinforcers. In
45 addition, the economic contextdefined in term of token-exchange opportunitieswas also manipulated as they we re in Experiment 1. Methods Subjects Four adult humans (two male and two fema le) were hired to serve as participants after signing an informed consent. All were re cruited via local newspaper advertisement or flyers spread out in the University of Florida campus, and had no prior experience with similar experiments. The total number of sessions subjects were exposed to until the completion of the study ranged from 24 to 54, and t hey earned between $5 to 6 dollars per/hour. Material, Location, and Equipment Two small rooms, each containing a c hair, a desk, a computer, a pair of speakers, a keyboard, and a mouse, served as experimental location. Both rooms were used during the exper iment, but a given subject was always studied in the same room. During sessions, subjects remained seated in front of the co mputer monitor and responded to the visual stimuli presented on the screen by clicking with the computer mouse. The computers were IBM-compatible and the visual interface displayed on the screen, as well as data collection were contro lled via Visual Basic 6. 0 software program. The monitor screen measured approximately 36.5 cm wide by 27.5 cm high, and was placed on the desk at approxim ate eye-level height of t he subject when seated. A picture of the visual interface display ed on the screen of the computer is shown in Figure 3-1. For the purpose of clarification, all the stim ulus components used in the concurrent-chain schedule are presented together. The visual interface was comprised of four aligned red circles that served as tokens, and three aligned colored rectangles.
46 The circles had a circumference of 7.85 cm and were aligned at approximately 3.5 cm from the top of the screen. They were equally distanced from each other (2 cm) and centered on the screen. The left-most and right-most tokens were located at approximately 9.6 cm from t he left and right side, respectively. The three aligned rectangles representing the choice alternatives and token exchange response were centered on the screen, and located approxim ately 4.5 cm below the tokens. The rectangles measured 7.7 cm wide by 7 cm high and were equally distant at approximately 3.2 cm. The cent er rectangle was colored red, white, or gray; and the side rectangles were colored blue, green, yellow, orange, or gray, depending on the experimental condition or t he specific link within the chained schedule. The background screen color was gray. When inactive, the to kens and the rectangles were also colored gray (the exact same color of the screen background) but were outlined in a manner that they remained slight ly visible on the screen. Procedure Two sessions lasting approximately 50 min each, were scheduled per day, five days a week. Sessions occurred successively and were intercalated by a five-min break. In each session, participants were inst ructed to leave their personal belongings in a safe place, and were escorted by the re search assistant to the testing room. No timing device of any sort was allowed to be brought into the exper imental room. A variety of popular TV shows were recorded and used as backup reinforcers throughout the experiment. The videos were c onverted to AVI format and stored at the hard disk of both computers. Each episode was divided into segments of approximately 30 s and was played each time the subject exchanged a token. A total of 48 video segments, which corresponded to a full show episode, were played each session. The
47 particular episode played during a session was selected by the subject prior to the beginning of that session from among ten ava ilable options: (1) Friends (season 6); (2) Friends (season 7); (3) Family Guy (season 1); (4) Looney Tunes; (5) Seinfield (season 4); (6) Simpsons (season 2); (7 ) Simpsons (season 3); (8) S ports Bloopers; (9) Will and Grace (season 1); and (10) Wallace and Gromit. To avoid repeated episodes, the program would automatically play the next available episode in the sequence. In case the subject watched all episodes available of a given show, the program would prompt t he subject to choose a different show prior to the initiation of the session. After choosing a given show, and clicking on the continue button, two additional messages we re displayed: You will need to use only the mouse for this part of t he experiment and when you are ready to begin, click the begin button below. Immedi ately after subjects clicked on the buttons following the prompts, the experimental session started and subjects were exposed to the experimental choice contingency. Subjects did not receive any instructi on about the experim ental contingencies during the experiment. The only instructions were to follow the prompts displayed on the screen, use the computer mouse during t he session, and use the keyboard only at the end of the session (when prompted to rate the videos). During each session, the subject remained alone in the experimental r oom while the research assistant stayed in an adjacent room until the completion of the sessions. The experimental choice contingency im plemented here is analogous to the one used in Experiment 1. Subjects were given repeated choices between sequences of token and video clips using a concurrent-chains schedule with two links. The initial link
48 consisted of a Conc FR1 FR1 and the term inal link was comprised of a sequence of delays to each of 4 tokens and an exchange sc hedule. In the initial link, the token and center rectangle were inactive, while the two side rectangles were colored yellow or green and remained flashing on the screen (Figur e 3-2). A single response on either rectangle produced the terminal-link stimuli, which was signaled by the following events: (1) The clicked alternative stopped flashing and became inactive; (2) the other alternative also became inactive but colo red with the gray background color; and (3) initiation of the timer that controlled the delivery of the tokens. The terminal link was comprised of a sequence of delays to each of 4 tokens and exchange schedule associated with the alternativ e clicked. When the token was presented a brief beep was emitted. Similar to Experiment 1, the tokens were also presented from left to right or from right to left depending on whether the choice occurr ed on the left or right alternative, respectively. No ITI was implem ented in this experiment. At the beginning of each cycle, the visual display showed a fl ashing white centered rectangle, click upon which produced the initiallink stimuli (i.e., trialinitiation response). Similarly to Experiment 1, tokens were exchanged either after the delivery of the fourth token in the sequence (DC Condition) or im mediately after the delivery of each individual token in the sequence (IC Condition). The timer that cont rolled the delivery of the tokens during DC and IC conditions work ed in a similar manner as described in Experiment 1. Each token was exchanged for approximately 30-s of video segment, and the exchange schedule was signaled by flashing the red center rectangle (exchange rectangle) and the deactivation and darkening of the choice-rectangle alternatives. A single click on the exc hange rectangle produced a brief beep and the
49 token exchange. Figure 3-3 is a picture of the computer screen during the exchange schedule. Sequences of Reinforcement Figure 3-4 depicts the sequences of terminal-link event s implement ed in this experiment. The sequences followed the same rationale of the sequences used in Experiment 1, but the overall time-span of the delivery of all tokens (i.e., the terminallink duration) was 2 min rat her than 1 min. The duratio n of the terminal-link was extended in relation to Experiment 1 because previous unpublished work in our laboratory have shown that average delays of approximately 30 seconds were well suited in exerting control over the behavior of human subjects. More specifically, the S tandard (STD) sequence contained four tok ens presented at equal inter-temporal delays of 30 s, the Worsening (WOR) sequence the delays between successive tokens increased (10 s, 20 s, 30 s, and 60 s), and the Improving (IMP) sequence the delays between successive tokens decreased (60 s, 30 s, 20 s, and 10 s). Experimental conditions were in effect for a minimum of four sessions and until choice proportions were deemed stable via visual inspection. Delay Sensitivity Test Prior to exposure to th e main experimental conditions described above, all subjects were expos ed to a contingency aim ed to assess delay sensitivity to the video reinforcer. During this pre-experimental phase, the contingency involved choices between alternatives that produc ed a single reinforcer delivered after different delays. One alternative produced a video clip segment after 5 s, while the other alternative produced the same outcome after a delay of 30 s. The duration of the video clip segment was the same, only the delay varied between the alternatives. To maintain a
50 constant reinforcement rate between both al ternatives, a 25-s post-reinforcer delay followed the 5-s reinforcer delay option. Figure 3-5 shows a schematic of the contingency implemented in this phase. The experimental procedure adopted in this phase was very similar to the main choice procedure already described above, ex cept for the following differences: (1) The color of the choice rectangles were orange and blue, instead of green and yellow; (2) there was no token delivered in the terminal link; (3) once the programmed delay had expired, the centered red rectangle was presented, and a single click would produce the video; (4) the overall duration of the termina l link was 30 s instead of 120 s; (5) each session was comprised of the total of 8 forced and 40 free-choice trials. Subjects received a minimum of 10 se ssions. Only those who showed strong and unambiguous preference for the shorter delay were invited to continue in the experiment. Questionnaire Subjects were given a questionnaire at t he end of the experiment that included questions involving hy pothetical sequences of two outcomes in which the delay to the outcomes were manipulated across questions. These questions were taken from the article published by Loewenstein and Prelec (1993) and are shown in Appendix A. Results and Discussion Out of the 11 subjects who were expo sed to the 10 minimum sessions, five did not show preference for the shorter delay alte rnative during the delay sensitivity test and were not invited to continue in the experimen t. Six subjects demonstrated sensitivity to the shorter delay alternative during the delay sensitivity phase, but two decided to drop
51 the experiment shortly after this phase was completed. The results of the present experiment are based upon the performance of the four remaining subjects. Choice Patterns Figure 3-6 is similar to Figure 2-4, and shows the mean proportion of choices over the last 3 sessions on the left and right side alternatives across experimental conditions. One subject, H148, w as exposed to all experimental conditions, including the reversals and replications. Subjec t H146 was exposed to all experimental conditions but was not exposed to all reve rsals and replications, and Subjects H154 and H161 finished only 2 and 3 conditions, respectively. When the STD was pitted against IMP, subjects H161 and H148 showed preference for IMP, whereas H146 and H154 showed preference for STD predominantly. In the WOR versus STD condition, all subjects showed strong preference for the WOR sequenc e. In the third pairwis e comparison WOR versus IMP, the three subjects who were exposed to this condition also showed preference for the WOR sequence. Note that H148, showed preference for IMP in one out of three occasions in which he was exposed to this pair of sequences. Only subjects H146 and H148 were expo sed to the DC conditions, and both subjects showed larger proportion of responses toward the WOR sequence over the STD and IMP sequences. Becaus e there was not a replicati on of the DC conditions, it is important to analyze participants performance at the preceding cond ition. (Note that the data shown in Figure 3-6 was grouped and thus do not re flect the exact order on which subjects were exposed to the experi mental conditions.) The exact order of exposure to the conditions is shown in Table 3-1. As in Experiment 1, the conditions that preceded the DC conditions di ffered only in that they were IC conditions. In other
52 words, the comparisons involved the same pair of sequences, located at the same side; the only difference was that the token-exchange was made av ailable after the delivery of each token. In 3 out of 4 exposure s to the delayed condit ions, H146 and H148 preferred the alternative on the side consist ent with the preferences in the immediately prior condition. Therefore, results during DC conditions suggest carryover effects. Considered as a whole, the human participants showed pref erence for the WOR sequence in 13 out of 14 opportunities under IC conditions, and showed preference for the sequence with higher hyperbo lic value in 16 out of 20 o ccasions. These results support the ordinal predictions of the hyperbolic decay model, and are consistent with the results obtained with rats (Brunner, 1999, Exp 1) and with pigeons (Experiment 1 of the present study). They are inconsist ent, however, with results obtained in prior research with humans, which report preference for improvi ng sequences (Ariely, 1998; Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000; Chapman, 2000; Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993; Loewenstein & Sicherman, 1991; Schreber & Kahneman, 2000). A possible explanation for the contrasting results may be attributed to the specific nature of the reinforcer used or the specif ic reinforcer parameter being manipulated across experiments. In the present experiment, the value of a sequence of reinforcers was measured as a function of the delay to each member in the series, whereas other studies typically include magnitude manipulati ons, as well: either in relation to some qualitative property of a hypothetical stimulus (Chapman, 2000; Loewenstein & Sicherman, 1991; Loewenstein & Prelec, 1993); or in relation to some actual sensorial experience, such as aversive noise or temperatures (Ariely, 1998; Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000; Schreber & Kahneman, 2000). Therefore, it is possible that the manner in which
53 organisms discount delayed events alone differ in some important ways to the manner in which organisms discount delayed events that also vary in intensity/magnitude. In addition, it is also plausible, that the manner in which organisms discount different outcomes varies in accord to the specific nat ure of the reinforcer. Here, the reinforcer implemented was segments of popular TV shows, whereas previous studies used either qualitative different hypothetical events or aversive stimulation. The assumption that a single fixed discount parameter holds across different outcomes needs to be empirically tested. Another significant procedural difference was the manner in which choices were presented and the dependent variable measur ed across studies. In previous experiments, participants made a singl e choice, and the dependent measure was a verbal response rating or marking the pref erred sequence. In the present experiment, participants were exposed to the choice c ontingency multiple times, which presumably allowed them to learn from direct experience with the task and its contingent consequences; and performance was measured based on the relative response allocation when it was deemed stable. Thus, while the present procedures differed in some significant ways from previous met hods used with humans, they are in greater alignment with methods typically used wit h nonhumans. This makes them more suitable in cross-species comparisons, a major aim of the present inve stigation. Future research might profitably be directed towa rd approximating the more-typical human methods to determine more precisely the c onditions under which the results begin to depart from the temporal discounting reported here.
54 Questionnaire Results Figure 3-7 shows the result s obtained from the questionnaire given at the end of the experiment (Appendix A). The x-axis refe rs to the question number, and the y-axis refers to the percentage of subjects who se lected answer A (black ba r) or B (gray bar). To facilitate comparison with t he previous literature, the re sults reported by Loewenstein and Prelec (1993) with the same questions were plotted and are shown in the top graph. The middle graph shows the results fo r the four participants who completed the present experiment. Question 2 involved a single outcome de livered sooner (answer A) or later (answer B); and questions 3-6 involved s equences comprised of 2 outcomes with decreasing/worsening trend (answe r A) and increasing/improving trend (answer B). It is important to note that the questions 3-6 differed from each other in relation to the timeframe events occurred; specially the time interval between the 2 outcomes. The time separation between the 2 outcomes were lo nger in questions 3 and 5 compared to questions 4 and 6. The results of question 1 are irrelevant and are not shown in the graphs. All participants from this experiment (mi ddle graph) preferred to have dinner at their preferred restaurant sooner rather than later (Question 2). Results obtained from question 3-6 showed that the patterns of choices between improving and worsening trends were not constant among all hypothetical scenarios. The majority of subjects preferred the worsening sequence in the sc enarios described in questions 3 and 5, but demonstrated preference for improving sequences in the scenarios described in question 4 and 6.
55 The results reported by Loewenstein and Prelec (1993) showed a large percentage of subjects prefe rring the improving alternative in questions 4 and 6, and slight preference for this alternative (clo se to indifference) in questions 3 and 5. Therefore, compared to the results obtained via questionnaire in this study, results reported by Loewenstein and Prelec (1993) were similar in res pect to question 2, 4, and 6, but were different with respect to ques tion 3 and 5. This different pattern of preference across different questions suggests t hat if trend has an effect on choice, this effect seems to be partly dependent upon t he proximity of the outcomes embedded in the series. This confirms Loewenstein and Prelecs claim that the spread of the outcomes is an important variable determining preference for improving sequences. To reiterate, the four subjects of the present experiment showed a strong preference for worsening over improving sequences w hen making choices with actual outcomes spread over 2 minutes in the terminal-link. If the temporal proximity of the events plays a role, as speculated above based on the hypothetical scenarios, one would expect different response patterns if the intervals between the act ual outcomes were changed. The relation between choices involving one and two outcomes is captured in the analysis of questions 2 and 3. Although results were slightly different across this and the earlier experiment, an interesting simila r pattern can be observed: some subjects who chose to have the preferred outcome sooner rather than later when faced with choices with single outcome; choose to postpone the preferred outcome when a less preferred outcome was embedded in the series. It is important to note that there were some methodolog ical differences that may account for the different results obtained in the present study and the one published by
56 Loewenstein and Prelec (1993). The first diff erence was the sample of subjects who were recruited to answer the questions. In the present exper iment, each subject (University of Florida students) answered all the questions; whereas in Loewenstein and Prelecs study, one group of subjects comp rised of Harvard students (N=82) answered questions 1-3, and another group comprised of vi sitors of the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago (N=48) answered questions 4-6. Another difference may be attributed to fatigue. Here, subjects ans wered the questionnaire after being exposed to 2 experimental sessions lasting approximately 2 hours, whereas subjec ts of the earlier study were recruited to answer the questionnai re alone. Thus, it is possible that subjects from the present study were tired and did not pay enough attention to the questions. In addition, it is also possible that prior exposure to the experimental contingency may have had some effect on the s ubjects evaluation of the scenarios laid before them via the questionnaire. The results obtained via questionnaire here are supported by the results published by Matsumoto et al. (2000, Exp.2). In that study, business students were also given a choice between restaurant sequences (identical to question 3) and a larger percentage of subjects selected the worsening sequence over the improving. The validity of the results obtained via the questionnaire in this experiment is limited due to small number of subjects. To increase the sample size, another figure was created adding the answers obtained from the subjects who dropped the present experiment, as well as the results obtained fr om a pilot study whose subjects answered the exact same questionnaire. The results ar e shown in the bottom graph of the figure (N=58). The results displayed in this graph show a general similar pattern. The main
57 difference is that the percentage of subjects who preferred worsening over improving in question 3 and 5 became much less disparate w hen compared to the four subjects from the present experiment alone.
58 Figure 3-1. Picture of the screen with all the visual com ponents used in the concurrent chain schedule. The red circles represent tokens and the side rectangles represent the choice alternatives. The centered rectangle represents the token exchange or trial initiation re sponse when colored red or white, respectively. Figure 3-2. Screen shot of the choice phase (initial-link). The left and right rectangles represent the choice alternatives and remained flashing on the screen until a response was made. The center re ctangle was visible, but inactive.
59 Figure 3-3. Screen shot of the token exchange phase. Figure 3-4. Diagram of the terminal-links implemented for each sequence in Experiment 2. The horiz ontal lines show the te rminal link with time going from left to right. Each vertical bar represents the temporal placement of tokens timed from terminal-link onse t: 30 s, 60 s, 90 s and 120 s in the Standard sequence; 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, and 120 s in the Worsening sequence, and 60 s, 90 s, 110 s and 120 s in the Improving sequence. Time (s) 20s 40s 60s 80s 100s 120s STD IMP WOR 0s
60 Figure 3-5. Diagram of t he terminal-links implemented duri ng delay sensitivity test. Responses on alternative 1 produced a vi deo segment after a delay of 5 sec, whereas responses on alternative 2 produced video after a delay of 30 seconds. In addition to the delay to video, Alternative 1 terminal link also contained an ITI of 25 seconds. Time (s) 10s 20s 30s Alt 1 Alt 2 ITI 0s
61 Table 3-1. Sequence of conditi ons for each subject in Experim ent 2. DST refers to the delay sensitivity test phase. Long and s hort refer to the alternatives that produced the reinforcer after 30 and 5 sec, respectively. The letters L and R in parenthesis indicate the location (left or right) of each sequence. IC refers to Immediate Consumption, whereas DC refers to Delayed Consumption condition. Subject Condition H146DST Long(R) X Short(L) 4 STD(R) X IMP(L) IC 12 STD(R) X WOR(L) IC 4 WOR(R) X IMP(L) IC 6 WOR(R) X IMP(L) DC 4 STD(R) X WOR(L) IC 4 STD(R) X WOR(L) DC6 H148DST Long(R) X Short(L) 2 STD(R) X IMP(L) IC 8 STD(R) X WOR(L) IC 4 STD(L) X WOR(R) IC 4 WOR(R) X IMP(L) IC 10 WOR(R) X IMP(L) DC 4 STD(R) X WOR(L) IC 4 STD(R) X WOR(L) DC 4 STD(L) X WOR(R) IC 6 WOR(L) X IMP(R) IC 4 WOR(R) X IMP(L) IC 4 H154DST Long(R) X Short(L) 4 STD(R) X IMP(L) IC 6 STD(L) X IMP(R) IC 4 STD(R) X IMP(L) IC 10 STD(R) X WOR(L) IC 4 H161DST Long(R) X Short(L) 6 WOR(R) X IMP(L) IC 4 STD(R) X WOR(L) IC 4 STD(R) X IMP(L) IC 6 WOR(R) X IMP(L) IC 4Sessions
62 Conditions Conditions IC DCIMP WOR -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 STD STD WOR STD STD WOR WOR IMP WOR IMPH146 -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 STD STD STD STD WOR WOR WOR WOR IMP WOR STD STD WOR WOR WOR IMP WOR IMP IMP IMPH148 H154 STD WOR -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 STD IMP STD STD IMP IMP WOR IMP -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 STD STD WOR WOR IMP IMPH161 Proportion Left Proportion Left Proportion Right Proportion Right Figure 3-6. Mean proportion of choices for each alternative in Experiment 2. Ba rs on the left and on the right side depict the proportions from the last 3 sessions on the left and right side, respectively. Filled bars depict IC conditions and unfilled bars depict DC conditions. See text for further details.
63 Experiment 2 and pilot study (N=58) Question Number 23456 0 20 40 60 80 100 Loewenstein & Prelec (1993) (Q#2 & 3 (N=82); Q#,4, 5, & 6 (N=48)) Answers (%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Answer A Answer B Answers (%) Experiment 2 (N=4) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Answers (%) Figure 3-7. Percentage of answers A and B given to the questionnaire questions. Black bars refer to answer A and gray bars refer to answer B
64 CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENT 3 Introduction The results obtained in Experiment 1 s howed that pigeons choic es were largely controlled by the delay to the fi rst reinforcer in the series. The extent to which the delay to subsequent reinforcers exerts control over choice is still largely undetermined. Prior research on the topic of sensitivity to mult iple reinforcers in a sequence is somewhat mixed. Moore (1979, 1982), for instanc e, found evidence that pigeons choices between sequences of reinforcers are governed primarily by the delay to the first reinforcer; subsequent reinforcers in the series have little or no effect on choice. On the other hand, Mazur (1986, 2007), Brunner (1999), Brunner and Gibbon (1995), and Shull et al. (1990), found evidence that animals c hoices (pigeons and rats) are sensitive to the delay to subsequent reinforcers, and that the data are well accounted by the predictions of the hyperbolic -decay model iterated across multiple reinforcers. Although prior results suggest that choice s are affected by temporally remote reinforcers in a sequence, little is cu rrently known about the number and range of reinforcers to which choices are sensitive. Unlike prior studies in which animals chose between sequences differing in both the number of reinforcers and the delays to individual reinforcers in a sequence, t he present study arranged choices between sequences of reinforcers delivered at the same overall rate but at different temporal patterning. The number of reinforcers in the sequences ranged from 2 to 4, but always included the same number and overall rate withi n a block of sessions. Delay sensitivity was assessed by selectively manipulating the delay to a single reinforcer while holding constant the delay to the other reinforcer(s) in the sequences.
65 Methods Subjects Four pigeons from Experim ent 1 served as subjects. Apparatus The same apparatus of Experim ent 1 was used. Procedure The procedure implemented in Experiment 3 was simila r to the experimental procedure used in Experiment 1 under IC conditi ons, except for the following: (1) The number of forced-choice trials was increased from 2 to 4; (2) Access to food was decreased from 2.5 to 2.25 sec onds per token exchange; (3) T he inter-trial interval (ITI) following the last reinforcer of a sequence was varied across conditions to maintain constant the reinforcement rate between both al ternatives. In Expe riment 1, the last reinforcer was always delivered at the same moment in the terminal-link (i.e., 60 sec), and each terminal link was always followed by a constant 5-s ITI. Thus, the total duration of the terminal-link plus ITI was hel d constant at 65 seconds. In the present experiment, the total duration of the terminal-link plus ITI was also held constant at 65 seconds, but due to unequal moment on which the last reinforcer within a pair of sequences was delivered in some manipulat ions, different ITI were implemented following the delivery of the last reinforcer. Across phases of the experiment, the sequenc es consisted of either 2, 3, or 4 food reinforcers, but always included t he same number and overall rate of food reinforcers across blocks of sessions (condi tions) within a phase. Timed from the terminal-link onset, the delay to an individual reinforcer in a sequence was selectively manipulated while maintaining constant the delay(s) to t he other reinforcers in the
66 sequence. In this way, sensitivity to a par ticular delay within a reinforcer sequence was assessed across phases. Table 4-1 depicts the conditions implement ed in this experiment. It shows the delays to individual reinforcers on each sequenc e, the overall hyperbolic value of each sequence, the difference in value between t he two sequences, and the relative value of one sequence over the other. To ease t he visual inspection, the higher value sequence, the one containing the shorter delay to a specific reinforcer in the series, was always placed in column S (where S refers to short); whereas the sequence containing the longer delay to a specific reinforcer wa s always placed in column L. The delays to each reinforcer in columns L and S are timed in seconds from the moment of choice, and the underlined values in these columns specify the individual reinforcer manipulated within a condition. The hyperbolic value of each sequence was measured assuming the parameters K and A equal to 1. The difference in value among the two sequences was calculated by subtracting t he sequence with lower hyperbolic value from the highervalue sequence (Value L Value S), and the relative value was calculated by dividing the value of sequence with higher value by t he sum of the values of both sequences (Value S / (Value S + Value L)). The relati ve value index has a value of .5 when the hyperbolic values of both alternatives are equal. When this index has a value above .5 it indicates that the hyperbolic value of the s equence located in the S column had a higher value; when the relative value is below .5 it indicates that the sequence placed in the L column had a higher value. To clarify the metric value (V ) as used here with this particular delay discounting model (i.e., hype rbolic-decay model), note that with the parameter values K and A set equal to 1, the maximum V that a single reinforcer can
67 have is 1; which would essentially be equal to the undiscounted value of the reinforcer (i.e., it means that there would be no discount ing at allit reflects the value if the reinforcer was delivered at a delay equal to zerowhich is technically impossible). The closer V is to zero, the more comple te discounting has occurred. The last condition of Experiment 3 (Conditi on 15 in Table 4-1) differed from all other conditions of the experim ent. Contrary to the previ ous conditions, in which the delay of a single reinforcer was selectively manipulated, this condition was comprised of a comparison between two sequences of reinforc ers in which the delay to all reinforcers differed. This condition was implement ed to assess whether preference for the sequence with higher hyperbolic value would hold even when that sequence contained a longer delay to the first re inforcer in the sequence. Results and Discussion Figures 4-1 and 4-2 provide a detailed characterization of the preference profiles for each subject. These figures show the mean proportion of choic es on each alternative across all experimental conditi ons for Pigeons P883 and P942 (Figure 4-1) and P702 and P894 (Figure 4-2). The experim ental conditions are displayed in the order that they occurred in the experiment (starting from the bottom). Each pairwise comparison, including the replications and reversals, if any, are grouped and separated by the dotted lines. To facilitate the descrip tion of the results, each comparison (i.e., each condition or set of conditions on which the delay to a specific reinforcer was manipulated) is numbered, the location of which is inside each graph. The transition from one condition to the next always involved arranging the richer sequence on the side opposite the preferred alternativ e from the previous condition.
68 Note that the order of conditions, as well as the specific delay values implemented, was not identical for each pigeon. To guide the reader, the analysis of the results starts with the individual description of the performance of P883. In the first set of experimental conditions co mparison number 1 (C1) in t he graph (first and second condition starting from the bottom), the delay to the 2nd reinforcer in a 4-reinforcer sequence was manipulated, and subject P883 did not show systematic preference for the shorter alternative (S ALT hencerforth). More specific ally, when the sequence with the shorter 2nd delay was located on the left side, P883 preferred the alternative on the left side, a pattern that remained nearly i dentical in the followin g condition. In a subsequent set of conditions, compar ison 6 (C6), sensitivity to the 2nd reinforcer in a 4reinforcer sequence was re-assessed using mo re discrepant parameter values. More specifically, the delay to the 2nd reinforcer of one sequence was decreased from 15 to 10 s whereas the delay to the 2nd reinforcer of the other sequence was increased from 35 to 40 s. When these delay values we re implemented, P883 showed differential preference for the S ALT. In C2, the delay to the 2nd reinforcer in a 2-reinforcer sequence was manipulated, and P883 showed pr eference for the S ALT irrespective of position. In C3 and C4, when sensitivity to the 3rd reinforcer in a 3-reinforcer sequence was assessed, P883 did not show sensitivity for the sequence with shorter 3rd reinforcer in C3 but did in C4 (when t he delay parameter of the 3rd reinforcer was decreased from 25 s to 20 s). P883 did not show sensitivity to the 4th and 3rd reinforcer in a sequence comprised of 4 reinforcers (C5 and C7, respecti vely). In the last set of conditions (C8), the one in which the sequence with highest hy perbolic value was the one with longer delay to the first reinforcer, P883 showed preference for the highest value sequence.
69 Following is an analysis of the performance of all subjects together. In relation to sequences comprised of 4 reinforcers, all f our subjects were exposed to at least one condition in which the 2nd reinforcer was manipulat ed, but only P942 (C1) and P883 (C7) showed preference for the S ALT. Out of the subjects exposed to the manipulation involving the 3rd and 4th reinforcer in a 4-reinforcer sequence, none of the subjects showed strong preference for t he S ALT. Nevertheless, not e that performance of P942 when the 4th reinforcer in the series was manipula ted (C6) indicates at least some delay sensitivity, as shown by the exclusive pr eference for the S ALT when this sequence was located on the right side and the near indiffe rence when this sequence was located on the left. When the last reinforcer in a 2-reinforcer sequence was manipulated, all subjects exposed to this manipulation (P 883 (C2), P702 (C3), and P894 (C3)) showed preference for the S ALT. In regards to the last reinforcer of a 3-reinforcer sequence, only two subjects showed preference for the S ALT when the delay values were made more extreme: P883 (in C4), and P702 (in C5). When 2nd reinforcer in a 3-reinforcer sequence was manipulated, the two subjects exposed to this condition, P702 and P894, also showed preference for the S ALT when the values were made more extreme (C9 for P702, and C7 for P894). In the last set of conditions, the one in which the sequence with highest hyperbolic value was the one with longer delay to the first reinforcer, 3 out of the 4 subjects showed preference for the highest value sequence. An analysis of the performance of the subjects across experimental conditions shows that subjects often responded mo re exclusively on one side alternative irrespective of the location of S ALT. Th is similar pattern of responses toward one specific side alternative across conditions in particular during the side reversal
70 conditions, indicates lack of sensitivity to the delay manipulated as well as side bias. In general, performance of P883 and P894 indicates a left side bias, whereas performance of P942 and P702 indicates a right side bias. Figure 4-3 shows for each pigeon the m ean proportion of choi ces on the highervalue sequence (y-axis) as a f unction of its relative value (x -axis), computed as in Table 4-1. Data are from the la st five sessions in each condition, with different symbols representing different reinforcer manipulations. The first number (from the left) written inside the legend indicates which reinforcer was manipulated in the series, and the second number indicates how many reinforc ers the sequence was comprised of in each comparison. For instance, the label 2nd3R indicates that the manipulation involved the second reinforcer in a sequence comprised of 3 reinforcers; and the label 3rd-4R indicates that the third reinforcer in a 4-reinforcer sequence was manipulated. To enhance visual inspection, only one data point is shown per condition for each subject. In cases in which the subject was exposed to the same condition more than once (i.e., when there were replications and re versal conditions), the data were taken from the condition in which preference to ward the higher-value sequence was lowest. In other words, in these cases the data we re taken from the condition in which less sensitivity to the manipulat ion was seen. This method was the most conservative measure and seemed most appropriate in light of the persistent side bias shown by all subjects (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The lines connecting some of the plots serve the function of highlighting the c onditions that involved the same manipulation but differed in terms of the relative hyperbolic value (i.e., those comparisons in which the delay to a single reinforcer was made mo re extreme/discrepant within t he pair of sequences). The
71 horizontal dotted line along each graph indicate s proportion of responses equal to .5 (indifference). Proportion of responses above this line reflects preference for the higher-value sequence, whereas below the line indicates preference for the lower-value alternative. In general, data suggest that preference is affected by the relative value of a sequence. In addition, preference also se ems to be differentially affected by the number of reinforcers that comprise the sequence, as well as the specific location of the reinforcer being manipulated. The relations hip between preference and relative value is more clearly observed by analyzing performance under the conditions involving sequences with the same number of elements and same reinforcer manipulation, but different relative values. This relationship is shown in the plots connected with a line. The connected points show that when the re lative value of a sequence is further increased by making a specific reinforcer del ay more extreme, preference toward that sequence typically increases. With two exce ptions (connected closed circles from P702 and connected opened circles from P894), preference for the highervalue sequence increased substantially in direct relation to its relative value. In nearly every case, the change in relative value within the same mani pulation produced a reversal of preference from the lower-value alternative to the higher-value one. It is important to note that across all the conditions of th is experiment, the difference in overall value between the pair of sequences being compared was very small. This small difference is reflected in the low relative value shown in the x-axis across the comparisons conducted in this exper iment. The relative values ranged from .51 to .57 (assuming K=1), which shows that when the delay to t he first reinforcer is held
72 constant and the terminal link length is fixed at 1 minute, t he manipulation of the subsequent reinforcers does not have a la rge impact on the overall value of the sequence. This is especially the case for the reinforcers delivered later in series, as the 3rd or 4th reinforcer. Nevertheless, the differentia l choice patterns exhibited when a given delay parameter value was made more discr epant indicates that choices were indeed sensitive to the changes, even in cases when preference for the richer sequence was not obtained. In summary, the results of Experiment 3 sh ow that choices were sensitive to the delay to the 2nd reinforcer in a sequence of 3, and sometimes to the 2nd reinforcer in a sequence of 4. For only one pigeon was there evidence of sensitivity to the final reinforcer in a sequence of 4. For no subjects was there sensitivity to the 3rd reinforcer in a 4-reinforcer sequence. In short, choices were sensitive to the delay to individual reinforcers in sequences comprised of 2 and sometimes 3 outcomes, but not in sequences of 4 outcomes. In the final condition, in which t he first reinforcer delay was pitted against the value of the 4-reinforcer s equence in its entirety, three of four pigeons preferred the sequence with higher value despite a longer delay to the first reinforcer of that sequence (final comparison). Overall, the results are broadly consist ent with models of te mporal discounting expanded to include the impact of sequences of delayed reinforcers. The differential pattern of responses in function of the del ay manipulations implemented in this study, suggests that the delay to each individual reinforcer in the sequence has an effect on the overall value of the sequence as a whole. Therefore, the resu lts obtained in the present experiment are inconsistent with t he results reported by Moore (1979, 1982)
73 who found that choices is only affected by the del ay to the first reinfo rcer in the series, but are consistent with the previous studies showing that the delay to subsequent reinforcers is an important variable determining choices between sequences of reinforcers (Brunner, 1999; Brunner & Gibbon, 1995; Mazur, 1986; 2007; Shull et al., 1990).
74 Table 4-1. Experimental condi tions implemented in Experiment 3. Column L refers to the sequences that contained the indivi dual longer reinforcer delay, and column S refers to the sequences that contained the individual shorter delay. The delays to each reinforcer are timed in seconds from the terminal-link onset. The underlined values specify the individual reinforcer that is being manipulated within a condition. The value difference was measured by subtracting Value S from Value L, and t he relative value was calculated by using the following formula: Vs/(Vs+Vl), where V refers to overall hyperbolic value, and the subscripts identif y the short and long columns. L SLSLSLS 1 5, 35 5, 15 30500.1940.2290.0350.541883, 702, 894 2 5, 35 5, 10 30550.1940.2580.0630.57702, 894 3 5, 15, 45 5, 15, 20 20450.2510.2770.0260.525883, 942 4 5, 15, 45 5, 15, 25 20400.2510.2680.0170.516883 5 5, 15, 45 5, 15, 30 20300.2510.2610.0110.51942 6 5, 10, 45 5, 10, 15 20500.2790.320.0410.534702, 894 7 5, 10, 60 5, 10, 15 5500.2740.320.0460.539942, 702, 894 8 5, 40 605, 10 60 550.2070.2740.0670.569702, 894 9 5, 55 605, 10 60 550.2010.2740.0730.577702, 894 10 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 25 5400.2930.3150.0220.518883, 942, 702 11 5, 15, 45 605, 15, 30 60 550.2670.2780.0110.51942 12 5, 10, 55 605, 10, 15 60 550.2920.3360.0450.536883, 942 13 5, 35 45, 605, 15 45, 60 550.2330.2670.0350.535883, 942, 702, 894 14 5, 40 45, 605, 10 45, 60 550.2290.2960.0670.563883, 702 1510, 40, 50, 6015, 20, 25, 305350.1510.1810.030.544883, 942, 702, 894 Subject Cond Delays (sec)ITI Relative Hyperbolic Value (V)
75 Proportion Left Proportion Left Proportion Right Proportion Right IC DC -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 5, 15 45, 60 5, 35 45, 60 15 20 25 30 10 40 50 60 5, 10 45, 60 5, 10, 55 60 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 35 45, 60 5, 15 45, 60 5, 15 5, 35 5, 15 5, 35 5, 15, 45 5, 15, 25 5, 15, 20 5, 15, 45 5, 15, 20 5, 15, 45 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 40 45, 60 5, 10 45, 60 5, 40 45, 60 5, 10, 55 60 5, 10, 15 60 5, 10, 15 60 15 20 25 30 10 40 50 60 P883 -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 5, 15 45, 60P942 5, 35 45, 60 5, 35 45, 60 5, 15 45, 60 5, 15 45, 60 5, 35 45, 60 5, 15, 45 60 5, 15, 30 60 5, 15, 45 60 5, 15, 30 60 5, 15, 30 5, 15, 45 5, 15, 20 5, 15, 45 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 60 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 60 5, 10, 60 15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30 10 40 50 60 10 40 50 60 5, 10, 15 60 5, 10, 15 60 5, 10, 55 60 5, 10, 55 60 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 15, 20, 25 Figure 4-1. Mean proportion of choices for each alternative in Experiment 3 for P883 and P942. Bars on the left and on the right side depict the proportions fr om the last 5 sessions on the left and right side, respectively. The underlined number in each label shows the specific reinforcer manipu lated in each comparison. Error bars indicate standard deviation from the means of the last 5 sessions of each condition. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C8 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1
76 -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 -1.0-0.50.00.51.0 5, 15 45, 60 5, 35 45, 60 15 20 25 30 10 40 50 60 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 35 5, 15 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 45 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 10 45, 60 5, 15 45, 60 5, 35 45, 60 5, 10 5, 10 5, 35 5, 35 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 60 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 60 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 15, 20, 60 5, 15, 20, 25 5, 40 45, 60 5, 10 60 5, 40 60 5, 10 60 5, 55 60 10 40 50 60 15 20 25 30 P894 5, 35 45, 60 15 20 25 30 5, 15 5, 15 45, 60 5, 10 5, 35 5, 10, 15 5, 10, 60 5, 10 60 5, 10 60 10 40 50 60 5, 10 5, 35 5, 35 5, 10, 45 5, 10, 15 5, 10 60 5, 40 60 5, 40 60 5, 40 60 5, 10 60 5, 10 60 5, 55 60 5, 55 60 15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30 10 40 50 60 10 40 50 60 P702 Proportion Left Proportion Left Proportion Right Proportion Right IC DC Figure 4-2. Mean proportion of choices for each alternative in Experiment 3 for P702 and P894. Bars on the left and on the right side depict the proportions from the last 5 sessions on the le ft and right side, respectively. The underlined number in each label shows the specific reinforcer manipu lated in each comparison. Error bars indicate standard deviation from the means of the last 5 sessions of each condition. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
77 0.500.520.540.560.58 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 P702 0.500.520.540.560.58 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Proportion of ChoicesRelative ValueP942 P894 0.500.520.540.560.58 P883 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Figure 4-3. Mean proportion of choices on the ric her alternative in function of its relative value. The first number (from the le ft) written inside the legend indicates which reinforcer was manipulated in the series, and the second number indicates how many reinforcers the sequence was comprised of in each comparison. See text for further details. 2nd2R 2nd3R 2nd4R 3rd3R 3rd4R 4th4R Long 1st4R
78 CHAPTER 5 GENERAL DISCUSSION One of the main goals of this study was a comparative analys is of choices between reinforcer sequences in humans an d pigeons. Experiments 1 and 2 were aimed to bring procedures used with pigeons and humans into better alignment through the token and consumable-type reinforcers and the manipulation of the economic context. In general, a similar pattern of choices was found across species. Data obtained during IC conditions, in which tokens were immediately exch angeable for food, showed that both pigeons and humans tended to prefer sequences with the shortest delay to the initial reinforcer. In DC condit ions, in which tokens could not be exchanged until the end of the trial, pr eferences still generally favored the sequences with the shorter initial reinforcer delay, though t he more variable and more susceptible to carryover effects from the i mmediately prior condition. Both the differences across the IC and DC conditions and the general similarities across species are consistent with the general thrust of the present research and the broader program of which it is a part (Hackenberg, 2005, 2009), in sho wing that species differences often reflect differences in methods used to study different species. Experiment 3 was an extension of Experiment 1, aim ed at further assessing sensitivity to a particular delay within a re inforcer sequence. Pigeons choices showed sensitivity to the delay to each reinforcer in a sequence comprised of 2 and 3 outcomes, but not with a sequence comprised of 4 outco mes. In relation to 4 reinforcer sequences, none of the pigeons showed sensitivity to the 3rd reinforcer, and only 2 showed sensitivity to the 2nd reinforcer in the series. These results indicate that the control of the behavior diminishes when se quences are comprised of more than 3
79 reinforcers. Further evidence of sensitivity to multiple reinforcers arrayed over time was obtained in the last condition, in which a ma jority of subjects preferred a sequence containing a longer delay to the first, but a shorter delay to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th reinforcer in the series. Together with the differential preference toward the sequence with the shorter delay after the values were made more extreme, these results indicate that the value of each reinforcer in the series is independent and additive, with value computed according to the hyperbolic discounting equati on. And along with the results obtained in the IC conditions of Experiment 1 and 2, these data provide further empirical support for the predictions of Equation 1-1. It is important to mention that the DU m odel used in Economics also incorporates the assumption that the value of a sequence of reinforcers is equal to the present discounted value of each member of t he sequence added together (that is, each reinforcer is viewed as independent and additive ). Therefore, the re sults presented here are also broadly consistent with the predicti ons of the DU model. This study was not designed to differentiate between the hyper bolic-decay model and the DU model; to do so it would be necessary to implement a procedure that allowed a more precise quantitative analysis that would make it possi ble to distinguish the hyperboloid function of the former from the exponential functi on of the latter. Cross-species Analysis of Choice The results obtained in Experiment 1 and 2 are consistent with prior data on temporal discounting with non-hu mans (Brunner, 1999, Exp.1) but differ from prior data with humans (e.g., Ariely, 1998; Chapman, 2000; Loewestein & Prelec, 1993; Loewenstein & Sicher man, 1991; Schreiber & Kahneman, 2000). This suggests that
80 previously reported differences between species may be due in part to procedural discrepancies rather than to more fundamental differences in behavioral process. Some important procedural differences in clude: (1) the nature of the reinforcer actual outcomes rather than hypothetical one s; (2) repeated exposure to the choice contingency and its consequences under steady -state conditions; (3) parametric manipulation of reinforcer variables on a within-subject basis; (4) measurement of preference via actual choices rather than verbal ratings. The last point raised above (4) is a crit ical one, raising fundamental questions of response definition. The literature in c hoice between sequences of reinforcement has traditionally been dominated by studies in whic h subjects report what they think they would do it in a given hypothetical scenario. But an essential question remains unanswered: Would they actually do as they say when exposed to actual events in life? Verbal statements about im agined behavior and actual response allocation among alternative sources of reinforcement (i.e., ch oices) are essentially two different classes of operant behavior potentially controlled by di fferent classes of stimulus events. One reason hypothetical scenarios pr esented via questionnaire has been the method of choice in Psychology and Economics is practicality. It is far easier to provide subjects with a brief questionnaire than to st udy their choices repeatedly over time and in relation to a parametric range of reinforcement variables. This is not to diminish the importance of research that uses hypothetical choice as dependent variables. This type of research has lead to interesting findings a nd has shed light in many interesting issues over the years. The point being raised here is that as any other research, reliability or
81 external validity of the findings obtained has to be tested, rather than assumed; and this is especially the case with re search that uses imagined scenar ios as research tools. In the present human experiment, subjects behaviorally demonstrated preference for the worsening over improving sequence, but when given the questionnaire preferred the improving sequence in 2 of the 4 scenarios described. Although the results obtained here were a bit differ ent from Loewenstein and Prelec (1993) in that the latter reported a higher perc entage of subjects preferring the IMP sequence across all four scenarios, they confirmed the authors claim that the spread (to use their term) of the outcomes within the sequence is a variable that affects preference for improving. Preference for IMP present s formidable theoretical and empirical challenges because it runs counter to most psychol ogical, economic, and evolutionary models based on delay discounting. From an evolutio nary standpoint, it is possible that the strong sensitivity to reinforcer immedi acy has been selected over time due to its importance to survival (Moore, 1988). Discounting of future events makes adaptive sense when environmental factors such as unc ertainty or competition for resources are taken into consideration (Kagel, Green, & Caraco, 1986). From this evolutionary perspective, then, preference for improving sequences is challenging because it carries with it the risk of loosing t he best part of the reward sequences (Brunner, 1999, p. 96). Although the world we (humans) inhabit today is much more stable than in previous epochs, it is highly unlikely that organisms with different tendencies to respond to future events have been selected through ev olution. There has been insufficient time for such process to occur. Therefore, in accounting for human preference for improving over worsening sequence, one would have to look into the ontogen etic history of
82 individuals in order to find factors that potentially can counter-balance this more fundamental (phylogenetic) tendency to choose sequences containing the best outcome first (i.e., worsening). O ne such factor (or mechanism) that seems theoretically plausible is that choosing improving sequen ces is rule-governed behavior. Rules are defined as verbal antecedents or contingency-specifying verbal stimulus, and rulegoverned behavior is behavior under the contro l of this verbal antecedent stimulus (Skinner, 1966). Thus, it is possible that the verbal community teaches its members to choose sequences that improv e rather than sequences that worsen in much the same way they seem to teach its members to choose larger later reinforcers (self-control) over smaller immediate ones (impulsivity). Limitations and Future Directions Perhaps the most significant limitation ac ross all three experiments was that the procedure implemented here often produced extreme preference for a single alternative. This preferenc e exclusivity was likely due to the concurrent FR1FR1 schedule arranged in the choice phase (i.e., discret e-tri al in the initial-link). This feature of the procedure makes it difficult to captur e different degrees of preference. It would be informative to see by how much subjec ts prefer one alternat ive over the other, instead of only which one they pr efer. In addition, this pr ocedure makes it challenging to dissociate response bias from indiffer ence. To demonstrate genuine preference, frequent side reversals were necessary. Future research might employ longer initial-link choice periods, which may produce more graded preferences between the reinforcer alternatives. Future studies involving choice with act ual reinforcers might manipulate variables other than delay, such as qua lity, magnitude, or probability of reinforcement. And in
83 addition to positive reinforcers, it would also be of great interest to examine preference for sequences of negative reinforcers. Note that there have been studies published using aversive events, but the dependent measur e used was mainly rating (e.g., Ariely, 1998; Ariely & Zauberman, 2000; Schreibber & Kahneman, 2000); and when subjects were required to chose a sequence, they were not exposed to the sequence they selected. To illustrate how such research might proceed with actual choices between actual negative reinforcer sequences, consider a recent pilot study fr om our lab. With video clip reinforcers, we manipulated the quality of the videos by inserting frequent interruptions while the video was being watched. The worsening alternative led to a video segment with increasing number of interruptions, wher eas the improving alternative led to a segment with decreasi ng number of interrupti ons. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, the experiment was not completed. Nevertheless, the study suggests a useful method for approaching th e important issue of choice between streams of aversive events.
84 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE Question 1 : Which would you prefer if both were free? a. Dinner at a fancy French restaurant b. Dinner at a local Greek restaurant. If you prefer French If you prefer Greek Question 2 : Which would you prefer? a. Dinner at the French restaurant on Friday in 1 month b. Dinner at t he French restaurant on Friday in 2 months. Question 2 : Which would you prefer? a. Dinner at th e Greek restaurant on Friday in 1 month b. Dinner at th e Greek restaurant on Friday in 2 months. Question 3 : Which would you prefer? a. Dinner at the French restaurant on Friday in 1 month and dinner at the Greek restaurant on Friday in 2 months b. Dinner at the Greek restaurant on Friday in 1 month and dinner at the French restaurant on Friday in 2 months Question 3 : Which would you prefer? a. Dinner at t he Greek restaurant on Friday in 1 month and dinner at the French restaurant on Friday in 2 months b. Dinner at t he French restaurant on Friday in 1 month and dinner at the Greek restaurant on Friday in 2 months Question 4 : Imagine you must schedule two weekend outi ngs to a city where you once lived. Suppose one outing will take place this coming weekend, the other the weekend after. a. This weekend: friends and Next weekend: unpleasant Aunt b. This weekend: unpleasant Aunt Next weekend: friends Question 5 : Suppose one outing will take place this coming weekend, the other in 6 months (26 weeks) a. This weekend: friends 26 weeks from now: unpleasant Aunt b. This weekend: unpleasant Aunt 26 weeks from now: friends
85 Question 6 : Suppose one outing will take place in 6 months (26 weeks from now), the other the weekend after (27 weeks from now) a. 26 weeks from now: friends 27 weeks from now: unpleasant Aunt b. 26 weeks from now: Unpleasant Aunt 27 weeks from now: friends
86 LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, A. C. (1932). Time di scrimination in the white rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology 13, 27-55. Ainslie, G. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 21, 485-489. Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavio ral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin 82 463-496. Ainslie, G., & Herrnstein, R. (1981). Pr eference reversal and delayed reinforcement. Animal Learning & Behavior 9 476-482. Ariely, D. (1998). Combining experiences over time: The effects of duration, intensity changes and on-line measur ements on retrospective pain evaluations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11, 19-45. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). When does durat ion matter in judgment and decision making? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129 508-523. Ariely, D., & Zauberman, G. (2000). On the making of an experience: The effects of breaking and combining experience s on their overall evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13, 219-232. Berns, G., Laibson, D., & Loew enstein, G. (2007). Intertem poral choice toward an integrative framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 482-488. Brunner, D. (1999). Preference for sequences of rewards: further tests of a parallel discounting model. Behavioral Process 45, 87. Brunner, D., & Gibbon, J. (1995) Value of food aggregates: parallel versus serial discounting. Animal Behavior 50, 1627. Chapman, G. B. (2000), Preferences for im proving and declining sequences of health outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13, 203-18. Estle, J. S, Green, L., My erson, J., & Holt, D. (2007). Discounting of monetary and directly consumable rewards. Psychological Science 18, 58-63. Flora, S. R., & Pavlik, W. B. (1992) Human self-control and the density of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 57, 201-208. Frederick, S. Loewenstein, G. & ODonoghue, T. (2002). Ti me discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature XL (June): 351-401.
87 Green, L., Fisher, E., Perlow, S., & Sherman, L. (1981). Pr eference reversal and self control: Choice as a function of reward amount and delay. Behaviour Analysis Letters 1 43-51 Green, L., Fristoe, N., & Myerson, J. (1994). Tempor al discounting and preference reversals in choice between delayed outcomes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1 383-389. Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myer son, J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison. Psychological Science 5, 33-36. Green, L., Myerson, J. (2004) A discounting framework fo r choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin 130, 769-792. Guyse, J., Keller, L., & Eppel T. (2002). Valuing environmental outcomes: Preferences for constant or improving sequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87, 253-277. Hackenberg, T. D. (2005). Of pigeons and people: Some observations on species differences in choice and selfcontrol. Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis 1, 135. Hackenberg, T. D. (2009). Token reinforcement: A review and analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 91, 257. Hackenberg, T. D., & Pietras, C. J. (2000). Video a ccess as a reinforcer in a self-control paradigm: A method and some data. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 18, 1. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970) On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 13, 243-266. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1993). Determinants of hum an performance on concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 59, 29-60. Hsee, C. K., Abelson, R. P., & Salovey, P. (1991). The relati ve weighting of position and velocity in satisfaction. Psychological Science, 2, 263-266. Hull, C. (1943). Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory Oxford England: Appleton-Century. Hyten, C., Madden, G. J., & Field, D. P. (1994). Exchange delays and impulsive choice in adult humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 225-233. Jackson, K., & Hackenberg, T. D (1996). Tok en reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 66, 29-49.
88 Kagel, J. H, Green, L., & Caraco, T. (1986). When foragers discount the future: Constraint or adaptation? Animal Behaviour 271-283. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401-405. Kirby, K. N. (1997). Bidding on the future: Evidence against normative discounting of delayed rewards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 126 54-70. Kirby, K. N. (2006). The present values of delayed rewards are approximately additive. Behavioural Processes, 72, 273. Kirby, K. N., & Herrnstein, R. (1995). Pref erence reversals due to myopic discounting of delayed reward. Psychological Science, 6, 83-89. Lagorio, C. H., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2010). Risky choice in pigeons and humans: A cross-species comparison. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 93, 27-44. Locey, M. L., Pietras, C. J., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2009). Human risky choice: Delay sensitivity depends on reinforcer type. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 35, 15-22 Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1993). Pr eferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review. 100, 91. Loewenstein, G., & Sicherman, N. (1991). Do workers prefer increasing wage profiles? Journal of Labor Economics, 9, 67-84. Logue, A. W. (1988). Research on self-c ontrol: An integrating framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, 665-679. Logue, A. W., King, G. R., Chavarro, A. & Volpe, J. S. (1990). Matching and maximizing in a self-control paradigm using human subjects. Learning and Motivation 21, 340-368. Logue, A. W., & Pea-Correal, T. E (1984). Responding during reinforcement delay in a self-control paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 41, 267277. Logue, A. W., Pea-Correal, T. E., Rodriguez, M. L., & Kabela, E. (1986). Self-control in adult humans: Variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 46, 159-173.
89 Matsumoto, D., Peecher, M., & Rich, J. (2000). Evaluations of outcome sequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 84, 331-352. Mazur, J. E. (1984). Tests of an equivalence rule for fi xed and variable reinforcer delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 19, 426-436. Mazur, J.E. (1986). Choice between singl e and multiple delayed reinforcers. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 67. Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure fo r studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: The effect of delay and of in tervening events on reinforcement value (Vol.5, pp. 55-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychological Review 108, 96-112. Mazur, J. E. (2007). Rats' choices between one and two delayed reinforcers. Learning & Behavior 35, 169-176. Mazur, J. E., & Logue, A. W. (1978). Choice in a self-control paradigm: Effects of a fading procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 30, 11-17. McDiarmid, C. G., & Rilling, M. E. (1965). Reinforcement delay and reinforcement rate as determinants of schedule preference. Psychonomic Science 2,195-196. Millar, A., & Navarick, D. (1984). Self-cont rol and choice in humans: Effects of video game playing as a positive reinforcer. Learning and Motivation 15, 203-218. Montgomery, N., & Unnava, H. (2009). Te mporal sequence effects: A memory framework. Journal of Consumer Research 36, 83-92. Moore, J. (1979). Choice and number of reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 32, 51-63. Moore, J. (1982). Choice and multiple reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 37, 115-122. Moore, J. (1988). Evolution and impulsiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, 691. Navarick, D. J. (1996). Choice in humans: Techniques for enhancing sensitivity to reinforcement immediacy. The Psychological Record 46, 539. Navarick, D. J. (1998). Impulsi ve choice in adults: How consistent are individual differences? The Psychological Record 48, 6654.
90 Navarick, D. J. (2004). Discounting of delayed reinforcers: Measurement by questionnaires versus operant choice procedures. The Psychological Record 54, 85-94. Perin, C. T. (1943). The effe ct of delayed reinforcement upon the differentiation of bar responses in white rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology 32, 95-109. Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C.D. (2008). Behavior Analysis and Learning New York, NY: Psychology Press. Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Co mmitment, choice and self-control. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 17, 15-22. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., Cross, D. (1991). Subjective pr obability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 233-44. Read, D., & Powell, M. (2002). Reasons for sequence preferences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15(5), 433-460. Ross, W. T., & Simonson, I. (1991). Evaluati ons of pairs of experiences: A preference for happy endings. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4, 273-282. Samuelson, P. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. Review of Economic Studies 4, 155-161. Schmitt, D., & Kemper, T. (1996). Preference for different sequences of increasing or decreasing rewards. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66, 89-101. Schreiber, C. A., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Determinants of the re membered utility of aversive sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 27-42. Shull, R.L., Mellon, R., Shar p, J.A (1990). Delay and number of food reinforcers: Effects on choice and latencies. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 235 246. Skinner, B. F. (1950) Are theories of learning necessaries? Psychological Review, 57, 193-216. Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Rese arch, method and theory (pp. 225-257). New York: Wiley. Solnick, J. V., Kannenberg, C. H., Eckerman, D. A., & Waller, M. B. (1980). An experimental analysis of impulsivi ty and impulse control in humans. Learning and Motivation 11, 61-77.
91 Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational Psychology. Vol. I: The Original Nature of Man Columbia Univ.: New York. Varey, C., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Experie nces extended across time: Evaluation of moments and episodes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 5, 169-185. Wolfe, J. B. (1934). The e ffect of delayed reward upon learning in the white rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology 17, 1-21.
92 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Leonardo was born in Boston (MA) in 1974, when his father was doing his PhD in Economics He left New England when he wa s three years of age, and lived in Brazil until coming to Florida in 2005. He did his undergraduate studies at the University Center of Brasilia (UniCeub), a private unive rsity more oriented toward service-delivery (application) than toward research. While studying there, he read Skinners Science and Human Behavior a book that had a profound impact in his views about Psychology. After reading Skinner, he decided that he n eeded to learn more about Behavior Analysis and obtain more experience with research, an area that was clearly lacking in his education. So, after Leonardo graduated in Psychology in 2002, he decided to apply for a place in the masters degree program at the University of Brasilia; a top, public, research-oriented university in Brazil. He was accepted in 2003 and finished his masters degree in 2005. The two years Leonardo spent in the Universi ty of Brasilia were very fruitful for his academic purposes. While studying there he had the privilege of working with Elenice Hanna. He soon started some experiments involvin g self-control in pigeons and children, one of which would become his master s thesis. More specifically, his masters thesis described a research project aimed at assessing the effects of activities made available during the delay to reinforcement on self-control choices in children. Shortly after Leonardo obtained his masters degree, he decided he wanted to do his PhD in the United States. He cont acted Timothy Hackenberg, a professor he had been very fortunate to have met in Brazil, and who had indicated that he shared some of the same research intere sts Leonardo did, such as token reinforcement and choice.
93 Leonardo was accepted at University of Flori da and started his doctoral studies in the fall of 2005. While studying at University of Flori da, Leonardo has conducted research mainly examining choice and conditioned reinforc ers. He has been involved in three long research projects. One project involved the assessment of token value. In this study he investigated how the amount of food for which a token was exchangeable affected subjects demand functions, breakpoints, and preferences. The second project involved the assessment of the reinfo rcer functions of generalized and conditioned reinforcers. The third project, the one he has chosen as his dissertation, involved a cross-species comparison of choices between sequences of reinforcers. Leonardo passed his qualification exam in the fall of 2009, and graduated from University of Florida in the spring of 2010.