An adjusting-delay procedure was used to study the choices of pigeons and rats when both delay and amount of reinforcement were varied. In different conditions, the choice alternatives included one versus two reinforcers, one versus three reinforcers, and three versus two reinforcers. The delay to one alternative (the standard alternative) was kept constant in a condition, and the delay to the other (the adjusting alternative) was increased or decreased many times a session so as to estimate an indifference point--a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Indifference functions were constructed by plotting the adjusting delay as a function of the standard delay for each pair of reinforcer amounts. The experiments were designed to test the prediction of a hyperbolic decay equation that the slopes of the indifference functions should increase as the ratio of the two reinforcer amounts increased. Consistent with the hyperbolic equation, the slopes of the indifference functions depended on the ratios of the two reinforcer amounts for both pigeons and rats. These results were not compatible with an exponential decay equation, which predicts slopes of 1 regardless of the reinforcer amounts. Combined with other data, these findings provide further evidence that delay discounting is well described by a hyperbolic equation for both species, but not by an exponential equation. Quantitative differences in the y-intercepts of the indifference functions from the two species suggested that the rate at which reinforcer strength decreases with increasing delay may be four or five times slower for rats than for pigeons.

Twelve pigeons responded on concurrent variable-interval schedules that delivered token stimuli (stimulus lights for some pigeons, and white circles on the response keys for others). During exchange periods, each token could be exchanged for food on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule. Across conditions, the exchange requirements (number of tokens that had to be earned before they could be exchanged for food) varied between one and four for the two response keys. The main findings were that the pigeons’ response percentages varied as a function of the number of tokens earned at any given moment, and they were determined by both the delays to food and by the number of food deliveries in the exchange periods. In some conditions, tokens had to be earned but were not visible during the variable-interval schedules for one or both keys. When one key had visible tokens and the other did not, the pigeons showed a preference for the key without visible tokens. A model based on the matching law and a hyperbolic delay-discounting equation could account for the main patterns of choice responding, and for how response percentages changed as successive tokens were earned. The results are consistent with the view that the token stimuli served as discriminative stimuli that signaled the current delays to food.

Parallel experiments with rats and pigeons examined reasons for previous findings that in choices with probabilistic delayed reinforcers, rats' choices were affected by the time between trials whereas pigeons' choices were not. In both experiments, the animals chose between a standard alternative and an adjusting alternative. A choice of the standard alternative led to a short delay (1 s or 3 s), and then food might or might not be delivered. If food was not delivered, there was an "interlink interval," and then the animal was forced to continue to select the standard alternative until food was delivered. A choice of the adjusting alternative always led to food after a delay that was systematically increased and decreased over trials to estimate an indifference point--a delay at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Under these conditions, the indifference points for both rats and pigeons increased as the interlink interval increased from 0 s to 20 s, indicating decreased preference for the probabilistic reinforcer with longer time between trials. The indifference points from both rats and pigeons were well described by the hyperbolic-decay model. In the last phase of each experiment, the animals were not forced to continue selecting the standard alternative if food was not delivered. Under these conditions, rats' choices were affected by the time between trials whereas pigeons' choices were not, replicating results of previous studies. The differences between the behavior of rats and pigeons appears to be the result of procedural details, not a fundamental difference in how these two species make choices with probabilistic delayed reinforcers.

Four rats responded on concurrent variable-interval schedules that delivered token stimuli (stimulus lights arranged vertically above each of two side levers). During exchange periods, each token could be exchanged for one food pellet by responding on a center lever, with one response required for each pellet delivery. In different conditions, the exchange requirements (number of tokens that had to be earned before they could be exchanged for food) varied between one and four for the two response levers. The experiments were closely patterned after research with pigeons by Mazur and Biondi (2013), and the results from the rats in the present experiment were similar. Response percentages on the two levers changed as each additional token was earned, and these patterns indicated that choice was controlled by both the time to the exchange periods and the number of food pellets that were delivered in the exchange period. In some conditions, the exchange requirement was three tokens for each lever, but the token lights were not turned on as they were earned for one of the two keys. The rats showed a slight preference for the lever without the token lights, which may indicate that the token lights were not serving as conditioned reinforcers (a result also found by Mazur and Biondi with pigeons). Overall, these results suggest that, in this choice procedure, the token stimuli served primarily as discriminative stimuli that signaled the temporal proximity and quantity of the primary reinforcer, food.