Response factors in delay discounting: Evidence for Pavlovian influences on delay discounting in pigeons

Holt, Daniel D.; Carlson, Joseph D.; Follett, Victoria L.; Jerdee, Nicole J.; Kelley, David P.; Muhich, Kaija M.; Tiry, Andrew M.; Reetz, Nicholas K.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.04.009

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 4 It is to be noted that Chelonis and Logue (1996) did not find a significant difference in sensitivity to delay or sensitivity to amount when pigeons responded either with a key press or with a treadle press, contrary to the results of Holt et al (2013). Differences in procedure might explain this discrepancy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…It thus may be the case that the pigeon’s ‘biological’ response (Green & Rachlin, 1975) is entrained, leading it to peck at the signal for the more immediate food reinforcer. In a test of this possibility, Holt et al (2013) compared the rate of discounting by pigeons for a delayed food reinforcer when the required response was the ‘biological’ key peck response versus a non-biological treadle-pressing response (see, Green & Holt, 2003), and reported that pigeons discounted less steeply when the choice response was treadle-pressing 4 . Therefore, the difference in the biological relevancy of key pecking for pigeons and lever pressing for rats might account for the observed species difference.…”

Section: An Adaptationist Perspective Of Self-control and Impulsivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At this point, reinforcement was available for a response to one of the alternatives, which was randomly assigned each trial. Across conditions, the alternatives either varied only in their delay (i.e., both alternatives resulted in 6-s access to grain, but one was delayed by 10 s and the other was delayed by 2 s), varied only in their amount (both alternatives were delayed by 6 s, but one alternative resulted in 10-s access to grain and the other resulted in 2-s access to grain), or the amount and delays associated with each alternative were identical (i.e., each resulted in 6-s access to grain after a 6-s delay). Rather than adjusting the amount of the smaller, immediate reinforcer on each trial to find an indifference point as in Holt et al (2013), Chelonis and Logue (1996) assessed relative rate of responding to each key. Holt et al argued that the key peck responses in the Holt et al study are significantly the result of the biological effect (i.e., Pavlovian conditioning): Pigeons typically peck at food, and because the key light is associated with food, pecking is the biologically entrained response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than adjusting the amount of the smaller, immediate reinforcer on each trial to find an indifference point as in Holt et al (2013), Chelonis and Logue (1996) assessed relative rate of responding to each key. Holt et al argued that the key peck responses in the Holt et al study are significantly the result of the biological effect (i.e., Pavlovian conditioning): Pigeons typically peck at food, and because the key light is associated with food, pecking is the biologically entrained response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

Vanderveldt¹,

Oliveira

Green

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

116

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay discounting refers to the decrease in subjective value of an outcome as the time to its receipt increases. Across species and situations, animals discount delayed rewards, and their discounting is well-described by a hyperboloid function. The current review begins with a comparison of discounting models and the procedures used to assess delay discounting in nonhuman animals. We next discuss the generality of discounting, reviewing the effects of different variables on the degree of discounting delayed reinforcers by nonhuman animals. Despite the many similarities in discounting observed between human and nonhuman animals, several differences have been proposed (e.g., the magnitude effect; nonhuman animals discount over a matter of seconds whereas humans report willing to wait months, if not years before receiving a reward), raising the possibility of fundamental species differences in intertemporal choice. After evaluating these differences, we discuss delay discounting from an adaptationist perspective. The pervasiveness of discounting across species and situations suggests it is a fundamental process underlying decision making.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: An Adaptationist Perspective Of Self-control and Impulsivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

Vanderveldt¹,

Oliveira

Green

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

116

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past experiments report rates of discounting for key pecking that closely resemble the data in the current study (e.g., Green et al ; Green, Myerson, & Calvert, ; Mazur, ). Holt et al (), using an FR schedule, reported similar patterns of discounting between the different procedures. Their experiment produced a shallower rate of discounting for the Treadle Press requirement compared to that of the Key Peck requirement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Towards validation of delay discounting in the pigeon

Holt

Wolf

Skytta

2018

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of procedures were conducted in an attempt to assess various forms of validity related to the use of pigeons in research on delay discounting. In separate experimental arrangements, pigeons pressed a treadle, pecked a lit key, pecked a darkened key, or pecked a lit key with a hold as the required response. First, the obtained results were consistent with what would be necessary if the construct of delay discounting were being measured, which provides evidence of face validity. Second, criterion validity was assessed by comparing individual differences in rates of discounting across procedures. Third, to assess internal validity, each pigeon repeated the Treadle, Key Peck, and Dark Key procedures. Again, at both the aggregate and individual levels, the obtained indifference points did not differ systematically between replications. Finally, to assess external validity, discounting was observed regardless of the procedure, where the patterns of data at the aggregate level, and generally at the individual level, were orderly and well described by a hyperbolic function. In addition, rates of discounting were similar when pigeons pecked a lit key, a dark key, or a key with a hold; and each of those rates of discounting tended to be steeper than when treadle pressing. Generally speaking, pigeons that discounted relatively steeply on one procedure also tended to discount relatively steeply on the other procedures. The procedures evidence some of the necessary elements involved with the use of pigeons in research on delay discounting.

show abstract

Delay discounting in the pigeon: In search of a magnitude effect

Holt

Wolf

2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The magnitude effect, where larger outcomes are discounted proportionally less than smaller outcomes, is a well‐established phenomenon in delay discounting by human participants. To this point in the literature magnitude effects have not been reliably evidenced in nonhuman animals. , however, used a concurrent‐chains arrangement with pigeon and found evidence for a magnitude effect. Grace et al. suggested that in many delay discounting experimental arrangements with nonhuman animals (e.g., adjusting amount, adjusting delay) the organism is not given the opportunity to directly compare outcomes of different sizes. They suggest that because of the lack of direct comparison it is difficult for the organism to determine the relative size of each outcome, which in turn mutes the effect of the amount differences between outcomes. As a test of this “comparison hypothesis,” the present experiment was conducted to assess whether the magnitude effect would be evidenced in pigeon when using an adjusting amount procedure where outcomes of different amounts were presented proximally. In the present arrangement, pigeons were presented two choice panels in an operant chamber where each panel was associated with an independent adjusting amount delay discounting task, but with differing outcome amounts (i.e., a 32‐food pellet panel and an 8‐food pellet panel). In this arrangement the choice panels alternated in their availability within a session from trial block to trial block. The present findings indicate no reliable effect of amount, even when the outcomes were proximal and thus readily comparable. This result suggests that the lack of magnitude effect is not driven by the organism's ability to compare the difference in amount between choice alternatives.

show abstract

Response factors in delay discounting: Evidence for Pavlovian influences on delay discounting in pigeons

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

Towards validation of delay discounting in the pigeon

Delay discounting in the pigeon: In search of a magnitude effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About