Abstract
Pigeons responded in a successive-encounters procedure that consisted of a search period, a choice period, and a handling period. The search period was either a fixed-interval or a mixed-interval schedule presented on the center key of a three-key chamber. Upon completion of the search period, the center key was turned off and the two side keys were lit. A pigeon could either accept a delay followed by food (by pecking the right key) or reject this option and return to the search period (by pecking the left key). During the choice period, a red right key represented the long alternative (a long handling delay followed by food), and a green right key represented the short alternative (a short handling delay followed by food). The experiment consisted of a series of comparisons for which optimal diet theory predicted no changes in preference for the long alternative (because the overall rates of reinforcement were unchanged), whereas the hyperbolic-decay model predicted changes in preference (because the delays to the next possible reinforcer were varied). In all comparisons, the results supported the predictions of the hyperbolic-decay model, which states that the value of a reinforcer is inversely related to the delay between a choice response and reinforcer delivery.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abarca, N., & Fantino, E. (1982). Choice and foraging. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 117–123.
Abarca, N., Fantino, E., & Ito, M. (1985). Percentage reward in an operant analogue to foraging. Animal Behaviour, 33, 1096–1101.
Caraco, T. (1981). Risk-sensitivity and foraging groups. Ecology, 62, 527–531.
Chesson, P. (1978). Predator-prey theory and variability. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 9, 323–347.
Cook, R. M., & Cockrell, B. J. (1978). Predator ingestion rate and its bearing on feeding time and theory of optimal diets. Journal of Animal Ecology, 47, 529–547.
Davison, M., & Jenkins, P. E. (1985). Stimulus discriminability, contingency discriminability, and schedule performance. Learning & Behavior, 13, 77–84.
Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723–730.
Fantino, E., & Preston, R. A. (1988). Choice and foraging: The effects of accessibility on acceptability. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 395–403.
Goss-Custard, J. D. (1977). Optimal foraging and the size selection of worms by redshank, Tringa totanus, in the field. Animal Behaviour, 25, 10–29.
Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113–129.
Green, L., Fry, A. F., & Myerson, J. (1994). Discounting of delayed rewards: A life-span comparison. Psychological Science, 5, 33–36.
Hanson, J., & Green, L. (1989). Foraging decisions: Prey choice by pigeons. Animal Behaviour, 37, 429–443.
Hantula, D. A., & Bryant, K. (2005). Delay discounting determines delivery fees in an e-commerce simulation: A behavioral economic perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 153–161.
Johnson, M. W., Bickel, W. K., & Baker, F. (2007). Moderate drug use and delay discounting: A comparison of heavy, light, and never smokers. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15, 187–194.
Jones, B. M., & Davison, M. (1998). Reporting contingencies of reinforcement in concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 161–183.
Krebs, J. R., Erichsen, J. T., Webber, M. I., & Charnov, E. L. (1977). Optimal prey selection in the great tit (Parus major). Animal Behaviour, 25, 30–38.
Lea, S. E. G. (1979). Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon: Optimal and non-optimal aspects of choice. Animal Behaviour, 27, 875–886.
Madden, G. J., Begotka, A. M., Raiff, B. R., & Kastern, L. L. (2003). Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 139–145.
Mazur, J. E. (1984). Tests of an equivalence rule for fixed and variable reinforcer delays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 426–436.
Mazur, J. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, & H. Rachlin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mazur, J. E. (1989). Theories of probabilistic reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 87–99.
Mazur, J. E. (2001). Hyperbolic value addition and general models of animal choice. Psychological Review, 108, 96–112.
Mazur, J. E. (2007). Choice in a successive-encounters procedure and hyperbolic decay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 73–85.
Mazur, J. E., & Romano, A. (1992). Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: Effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 513–525.
Oaten, A. (1977). Optimal foraging in patches: A case for stochasticity. Theoretical Population Biology, 12, 263–285.
Overton, A. A., & MacFadyen, A. J. (1998). Time discounting and the estimation of loan duration. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 607–618.
Sih, A., & Christensen, B. (2001). Optimal diet theory: When does it work, and when and why does it fail? Animal Behaviour, 61, 379–390.
Snyderman, M. (1983). Optimal prey selection: Partial selection, delay of reinforcement, and self control. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 3, 131–147.
Squires, N., & Fantino, E. (1971). A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 27–38.
Stephens, D. W., & Charnov, E. L. (1982). Optimal foraging: Some simple stochastic models. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology, 10, 251–263.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant MH 38357 from the National Institute of Mental Health. I thank Dawn Biondi, Michael Lejeune, and Krystie Tomlinson for their help in various phases of the research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mazur, J.E. Effects of reinforcer delay and variability in a successive-encounters procedure. Learning & Behavior 36, 301–310 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.4.301
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/LB.36.4.301