Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1998 Nov;70(3):253–265. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-253

Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of prereinforcer and postreinforcer stimuli.

J E Mazur 1
PMCID: PMC1284683  PMID: 9821679

Abstract

In Experiment 1, pigeons' pecks on a green key led to a 5-s delay with green houselights, and then food was delivered on 20% (or, in other conditions, 50%) of the trials. Pecks on a red key led to an adjusting delay with red houselights, and then food was delivered on every trial. The adjusting delay was used to estimate indifference points: delays at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. Varying the presence or absence of green houselights during the delays that preceded possible food deliveries had large effects on choice. In contrast, varying the presence of the green or red houselights in the intertrial intervals had no effects on choice. In Experiment 2, pecks on the green key led to delays of either 5 s or 30 s with green houselights, and then food was delivered on 20% of the trials. Varying the duration of the green houselights on nonreinforced trials had no effect on choice. The results suggest that the green houselights served as a conditioned reinforcer at some times but not at others, depending on whether or not there was a possibility that a primary reinforcer might be delivered. Given this interpretation of what constitutes a conditioned reinforcer, most of the results were consistent with the view that the strength of a conditioned reinforcer is inversely related to its duration.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (242.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ainslie G. W. Impulse control in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):485–489. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cicerone R. A. Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Mar;25(2):257–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dunn R., Spetch M. L. Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Mar;53(2):201–218. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Killeen P. R. Incentive theory: II. Models for choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Sep;38(2):217–232. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mazur J. E. Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: effects of delay and conditioned reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jan;55(1):63–77. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mazur J. E. Conditioned reinforcement and choice with delayed and uncertain primary reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Mar;63(2):139–150. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mazur J. E., Romano A. Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Nov;58(3):513–525. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mazur J. E. Theories of probabilistic reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Jan;51(1):87–99. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rachlin H., Raineri A., Cross D. Subjective probability and delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Mar;55(2):233–244. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Rider D. P. Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Mar;39(2):257–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Roberts S. Isolation of an internal clock. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1981 Jul;7(3):242–268. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Spetch M. L., Belke T. W., Barnet R. C., Dunn R., Pierce W. D. Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal-link length. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Mar;53(2):219–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vaughan W. Choice: A local analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):383–405. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES