Immediate reward followed by extinction vs. later reward without extinction

Fantino, Edmund

doi:10.3758/bf03328043

Cited by 97 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and rat, pigeon, and human subjects, preference reversals as a function of temporal remoteness of alternatives have been suggested by the data in a number of studies (Ainslie, 1974;Deluty, 1978;Fantino, 1966;Logan & Spanier, 1970;Navarick & Fantino, 1976;Rachlin & Green, 1972;Solnick, Kannenberg, Eckerman, & Walker, 1980). However, each of these studies has had limitations.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement

Ainslie

Herrnstein

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

343

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons chose, in a two-key discrete-trial procedure, between 2-and 4-sec access to grain, with the larger amount always presented 4 sec later than the smaller. As the delay between the choice and the availability of the smaller reinforcement was varied from .01 to 12 sec, all subjects reversed preference from the small-early to the large-late reinforcement. The values of delay at which preference reversed were approximately consistent with the matching law as adapted for delayed reinforcement.

show abstract

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement

Ainslie

Herrnstein

1981

Animal Learning & Behavior

343

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In both experiments, choice responding was more sensitive to variations in reinforcer duration at overall longer reinforcer delays than at overall shorter reinforcer delays, independently of whether fixed-interval or variableinterval schedules were arranged in the choice phase. We concluded that preference reversal results from a change in sensitivity of choice responding to ratios of reinforcer duration as the delays to both reinforcers are lengthened.Key words: self-control, choice, preference reversal, generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcer amount, reinforcer delay, concurrent-chains schedules, key peck, pigeonsIn the typical self-control procedure, a concurrent choice is arranged between an immediate short-duration reinforcer and a delayed longer duration reinforcer (Fantino, 1966). We speak of self-control when the delayed longer duration reinforcer is chosen (Ainslie, 1974(Ainslie, , 1975Rachlin, 1974;Rachlin & Green, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the typical self-control procedure, a concurrent choice is arranged between an immediate short-duration reinforcer and a delayed longer duration reinforcer (Fantino, 1966). We speak of self-control when the delayed longer duration reinforcer is chosen (Ainslie, 1974(Ainslie, , 1975Rachlin, 1974;Rachlin & Green, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to Reinforcer Duration in a Self‐control Procedure

White

Pipe

1987

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a concurrent-chains procedure, pigeons' responses on left and right keys were followed by reinforcers of different durations at different delays following the choice responses. Three pairs of reinforcer delays were arranged in each session, and reinforcer durations were varied over conditions. In Experiment 1 reinforcer delays were unequal, and in Experiment 2 reinforcer delays were equal. In Experiment 1 preference reversal was demonstrated in that an immediate short reinforcer was chosen more frequently than a longer reinforcer delayed 6 s from the choice, whereas the longer reinforcer was chosen more frequently when delays to both reinforcers were lengthened. In both experiments, choice responding was more sensitive to variations in reinforcer duration at overall longer reinforcer delays than at overall shorter reinforcer delays, independently of whether fixed-interval or variableinterval schedules were arranged in the choice phase. We concluded that preference reversal results from a change in sensitivity of choice responding to ratios of reinforcer duration as the delays to both reinforcers are lengthened.Key words: self-control, choice, preference reversal, generalized matching law, sensitivity to reinforcer amount, reinforcer delay, concurrent-chains schedules, key peck, pigeonsIn the typical self-control procedure, a concurrent choice is arranged between an immediate short-duration reinforcer and a delayed longer duration reinforcer (Fantino, 1966). We speak of self-control when the delayed longer duration reinforcer is chosen (Ainslie, 1974(Ainslie, , 1975Rachlin, 1974;Rachlin & Green, 1972). In studies with pigeons, the results of varying the reinforcer delays correlated with alternative choices have provided support for an extension of the generalized matching law (Baum, 1974) In Equation 1, B1 and B2 are choice responses producing reinforcers having durations (or amounts) of A1 and A2 at delays D1 and D2, respectively. The constant k describes a constant overall bias for one or the other response alternative. The exponents a and d describe the sensitivity of the ratio of choice responses to changes in the ratios of duration and delay, respectively. According to Equation 1, the effects of delay ratios (D2/D1) and duration ratios (A1/A2) do not interact and are independent.In a recent study, Rodriguez and Logue (1986) varied both ratios of reinforcer delays and ratios of reinforcer durations over several values in concurrent variable-interval (VI) schedules. In general, their data were adequately described by Equation 1, and there was no statistical interaction between the factors of delay and duration. The extant evidence therefore supports the description of choice in the self-control procedure provided by Equation 1, in that Equation 1 satisfactorily describes the result of varying reinforcer delays

show abstract

“…Thus, this model also predicts choice of the smaller, more immediate reinforcer over the larger, more delayed reinforcer as time to the larger reinforcer increases (Fantino, 1966;Ito & Asaki, 1982;Navarick & Fantino, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of behavioral researchers have analyzed self-control from this perspective (Ainslie, 1974;Fantino, 1966;Navarick & Fantino, 1976;Rachlin & Green, 1972), presenting alternatives differing in amount and delay of reinforcement. Studies analyzing the distribution of choice (Ainslie & Herrnstein, 1981; Green, Fisher, Perlow, & Sherman, 1981) have found that an organism's behavior could often be described by the matching law (Herrnstein, 1970), which predicts a match between the proportion of responses and the proportion of reinforcers for that response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐control: Teaching Tolerance for Delay in Impulsive Children

Schweitzer

Sulzer-Azároff

1988

J Exper Analysis Behavior

153

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated a procedure to increase the selection of larger, more delayed reinforcers (i.e., more advantageous in the long run) over smaller immediate reinforcers, in an effort to increase a key aspect of self-control in children. Six preschoolers, including one comparison subject, identified by their teachers as impulsive, were preassessed and found consistently to select smaller immediate reinforcers over larger, more delayed ones. The teaching procedure consisted of gradually increasing the durations of the delay interval over many sessions. The follow-up assessments showed that 5 of these children increased the proportion of their choices of the delayed reinforcers. Before training, indifference points ranged from 1.7 to 51.7 s; following treatment, points rose to a range of 37.5 to at least 90 s, with 3 children preferring the larger reinforcer at all delay intervals tested. The results demonstrated the feasibility of teaching young children to make choices more advantageous to them in the long run.

show abstract

Immediate reward followed by extinction vs. later reward without extinction

Cited by 97 publications

References 6 publications

Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement

Preference reversal and delayed reinforcement

Sensitivity to Reinforcer Duration in a Self‐control Procedure

Self‐control: Teaching Tolerance for Delay in Impulsive Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About