Abstract
Rationale
Organisms emit more responses when food is provided according to random as compared with fixed schedules of reinforcement. Similarly, many human behaviors deemed compulsive are maintained on variable schedules (e.g., gambling). If greater amounts of behavior are maintained by drugs of abuse when earned according to variably reinforced schedules, this would suggest that excessive drug-taking behavior may be due in part to the nature of drug availability.
Objectives
The aim was to determine whether random schedules of contingent intravenous drug delivery would produce more responding than similarly priced fixed schedules.
Methods
Six rhesus macaque subjects responded to produce cocaine (0.003–0.03 mg/kg/inj), remifentanil (0.01–1.0 μg/kg/inj), or ketamine (0.01–0.1 mg/kg/inj) according to either fixed or random ratio requirements that increased systematically across sessions. Demand curves were generated with the most effective dose of each drug and compared across drug and schedule type.
Results
Cocaine and remifentanil maintained higher levels and rates of responding when earned according to random-ratio schedules as compared with fixed-ratio schedules. This difference was most pronounced when drugs were available at high unit prices. Differences in responding across the schedule types generated by ketamine—a lesser-valued reinforcer—were qualitatively similar but smaller in magnitude.
Conclusions
The current study provides a systematic replication across reinforcer type demonstrating that drugs delivered after a random number of responses generate more behavior than those delivered according to a fixed schedule. The variable nature of the availability of drugs of abuse—particularly those that are scarce or expensive—may be a contributing factor to excessive drug intake by humans. This effect is most likely to be observed when more highly demanded (reinforcing) drugs are being consumed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrzejewski ME, Cardinal CD, Field DP, Flannery BA, Johnson M, Bailey K, Hineline PN (2005) Pigeons’ choices between fixed and variable interval schedules: utility of variability. J Exp Anal Behav 83:129–145. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.30-04
Bancroft SL, Bourret JC (2008) Generating variable and random schedules of reinforcement using Microsoft Excel macros. J Appl Behav Anal 41:227–235. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-227
Broadbear JH, Winger G, Woods JH (2004) Self-administration of fentanyl, cocaine and ketamine: effects on the pituitary-adrenal axis in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 176:398–406. doi:10.1007/s00213-004-1891-x
Cicerone RA (1976) Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 25:257–261. doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.25-257
Davison MC (1972) Preference for mixed-interval versus fixed-interval schedules: number of component intervals. J Exp Anal Behav 17:169–176. doi:10.1901/jeab.1972.17-169
Fantino E (1967) Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav 10:35–43. doi:10.1901/jeab.1967.10-35
Fantino E, Arbaraca N, Ito M (1987) Choice and optimal foraging: tests of the delay reduction hypothesis and the optimal diet model. In: Commons ML, Kacelnik A, Shettleworth SJ (eds) Foraging. Quantitative analyses of behavior Erlbaum. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
Ferster CB, Skinner BF (1957) Schedules of reinforcement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Herrnstein RJ (1964) Aperiodicity as a factor in choice. J Exp Anal Behav 7:179–182. doi:10.1901/jeab.1964.7-179
Hursh SR (1980) Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav 34:219–238. doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.34-219
Hursh SR (1988) A cost-benefit analysis of demand for food. J Exp Anal Behav 50:419–440. doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.50-419
Hursh SR, Fantino E (1973) Relative delay of reinforcement and choice. J Exp Anal Behav 19:437–450. doi:10.1901/jeab.1973.19-437
Hursh SR, Silberberg A (2008) Economic demand and essential value. Psychol Rev 115:186–198. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.186
Hursh SR, Winger G (1995) Normalized demand for drugs and other reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav 64:373–384. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.64-373
Kobayashi S, Schultz W (2008) Influence of reward delays on responses of dopamine neurons. J Neurosci 28:7837–7846. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1600-08.2008
Lagorio CH, Hackenberg TD (2010) Risky choice in pigeons and humans: a cross-species comparison. J Exp Anal Behav 93:27–44. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.93-27
Lagorio CH, Hackenberg TD (2012) Risky choice in pigeons: preference for amount variability using a token-reinforcement system. J Exp Anal Behav 98:139–154. doi:10.1901/jeab.2012.98-139
Logan FA (1965) Decision making by rats: uncertain outcome choices. J Comp Physiol Psych 59:246–251. doi:10.1037/h0021850
Madden GJ, Dake JM, Mauel EC, Rowe RR (2005) Labor supply and consumption of food in a closed economy under a range of fixed- and random-ratio schedules: tests of unit price. J Exp Anal Behav 83:99–118. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.32-04
Madden GJ, Ewan EE, Lagorio CH (2007) Toward an animal model of gambling: delay discounting and the allure of unpredictable outcomes. J Gambl Stud 23:63–83. doi:10.1007/s10899-006-9041-5
Mazur JE (1984) Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 10:426–436. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.10.4.426
Mazur JE (2004) Risky choice: selecting between certain and uncertain outcomes. Behav Anal Today 5:190–203
Schultz W (2012) Risky dopamine. Biol Psychiatry 71:180–181. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.11.019
Soreth ME, Hineline PN (2009) The probability of small schedule values and preference for random-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav 91:89–103. doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.91-89
Winger G, Hursh SR, Casey KL, Woods JH (2002) Relative reinforcing strength of three N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists with different onsets of action. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 301:690–697. doi:10.1124/jpet.301.2.690
Zeiler MD (1979) Output dynamics. In: Zeiler MD, Harzem P (eds) Advances in analysis of behaviour: reinforcement and the organization of behavior. Wiley, Chichester
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by PHS DA023992 to GW and T32 DA007268 to CL. The excellent technical assistance of Angela Lindsey, Matthew Zaks, Kathy Carey Zelenock, and Yong Gong Shi is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lagorio, C.H., Winger, G. Random-ratio schedules produce greater demand for i.v. drug administration than fixed-ratio schedules in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology 231, 2981–2988 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3477-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-014-3477-6