When outcomes are delayed, their value is decreased. Delay discounting is a much-studied topic because it is correlated with certain disorders (e.g., pathological gambling). The present study attempts to determine how people would delay discount a number of different commodities, ranging from money to dating partners to federal education legislation. Participants completed delay discounting tasks pertaining to 5 different commodities, with a different set of 5 commodities for 2 groups. Results showed that different commodities were often discounted differently. Both data sets were also subjected to factor analysis. A 2-factor solution was found for both, suggesting that there are multiple "domains" of commodities. This finding is of interest because it suggests that measuring delay discounting for one commodity within a particular domain of commodities will be predictive of how people discount other commodities within that domain but will not be predictive of how they discount commodities within another domain.

Legalized gambling has become both a major industry and concern in the United States, but little research from the behavior-analytic perspective has been done on the topic. The present study consisted of two experiments that had participants play a computer-simulated slot machine. The variables manipulated were the percentage payback rate (i.e., overall rate of reinforcement) and the amount of money the credits being wagered were worth (i.e., reinforcer magnitude). Experiment 1 investigated these variables using a between-groups design. Experiment 2 investigated them using a within-subjects design. Results from both experiments demonstrated that participants' gambling behavior did not vary as a function of payback percentage. Their behavior was, however, sensitive to credit value; overall, participants bet less when the credits were worth more. These findings have potential implications for why some people display "problem gambling." They will also hopefully promote research on a topic that has been largely ignored by the field of behavior analysis.

One hypothesis for the reason a person might become a pathological gambler is that the individual initially experiences a big win, which creates a fallacious expectation of winning, which may then lead to persistent gambling despite suffering large losses. Although this hypothesis has been around for several decades, only one controlled empirical study has addressed it, and that study reported null results. In the present experiment, the authors tested the "big win" hypothesis by having 4 groups of participants with little to no experience gambling play a computer-simulated slot machine for credits that were exchangeable for cash. One group experienced a large win on the very 1st play. Another experienced a large win on the 5th play. A 3rd group experienced 2 small wins on the 2nd and 5th plays. No other winning outcomes were programmed. The 4th group never experienced a win. The authors observed a significant effect of group. Participants who experienced a large win on the 1st play quit playing the simulation earlier than participants who experienced a large win on the 5th play. These results appear to question the "big win" as an explanation for pathological gambling. They are more consistent with a behavioral theory of gambling behavior. The present study should also promote the use of laboratory-based research to test long-standing hypotheses in the gambling literature.

Pigeons' key pecking was reinforced by food delivered by several fixed-interval, variable-ratio, and differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules. Rate of responding, number of responses per reinforcer, length of postreinforcement pause, running response rate, and the time required to collect an available reinforcer changed systematically within sessions when the schedules provided high rates of reinforcement, but usually not when they provided low rates. These results suggest that the factors that produce within-session changes in responding are generally similar for different schedules of reinforcement. However, a separate factor may also contribute during variable-ratio schedules. The results question explanations for within-session changes that are related solely to the passage of time, to responding, and to one interpretation of attention. They support the idea that one or more factors related to reinforcement play a role.

No abstract

Habituation to the reinforcer may contribute to multiple-schedule behavioral contrast. According to this argument, reducing reinforcers in one component of a multiple schedule reduces habituation to the reinforcer. Reducing habituation enhances the value, or effectiveness, of the remaining reinforcers, producing positive contrast. Enriching the reinforcers in one component increases habituation to that reinforcer. Increasing habituation decreases the effectiveness of the reinforcer, producing negative contrast. Such an idea is simple and parsimonious. It is not contradicted by any well-established finding in the contrast literature. It makes several tested and untested predictions that are unusual. However, habituation cannot explain all contrast. A complete explanation requires postulating that at least one additional mechanism, controlled by the conditions of reinforcement in the following component, also contributes to contrast.

No abstract

No abstract