Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1998 Nov;70(3):301–320. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1998.70-301

Context effects on choice.

J N Goldshmidt 1, K M Lattal 1, E Fantino 1
PMCID: PMC1284685  PMID: 9821681

Abstract

Four pigeons responded on a concurrent-chains schedule in four experiments that examined whether the effectiveness of a stimulus as a conditioned reinforcer is best described by a global approach, as measured by the average interreinforcement interval, or by a local contextual approach, as measured by the onset of the stimulus preceding the conditioned reinforcer. The interreinforcement interval was manipulated by the inclusion of an intertrial interval, which increased the overall time to reinforcement but did not change the local contingencies on a given trial A global analysis predicted choice for the richer alternative to decrease with the inclusion of an intertrial interval, whereas a local analysis predicted no change in preference. Experiment 1 examined sensitivity to intertrial intervals when each was signaled by the same houselight that operated throughout the session. In Experiment 2, the intertrial interval always was signaled by the stimulus correlated with the richer terminal link. In Experiment 3, the intertrial interval was signaled by the keylights correlated with the initial links and two novel houselights. Experiment 4 provided free food pseudorandomly during the intertrial interval. In all experiments, subjects' preferences were consistent with a local analysis of choice in concurrent chains. These results are discussed in terms of delay-reduction theory, which traditionally has failed to distinguish global and local contexts.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (280.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bateson M., Kacelnik A. Preferences for fixed and variable food sources: variability in amount and delay. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 May;63(3):313–329. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.63-313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cooper L. D., Aronson L., Balsam P. D., Gibbon J. Duration of signals for intertrial reinforcement and nonreinforcement in random control procedures. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1990 Jan;16(1):14–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dunn R. Timeout from concurrent schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Jan;53(1):163–174. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dunn R., Williams B., Royalty P. Devaluation of stimuli contingent on choice: evidence for conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Jul;48(1):117–131. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.48-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Durlach P. J. Effect of signaling intertrial unconditioned stimuli in autoshaping. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1983 Oct;9(4):374–389. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. FLESHLER M., HOFFMAN H. S. A progression for generating variable-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5:529–530. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fantino E. Choice and rate of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):723–730. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fantino E., Preston R. A., Dunn R. Delay reduction: current status. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):159–169. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grace R. C. A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jan;61(1):113–129. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaplan P. S., Hearst E. Bridging temporal gaps between CS and US in autoshaping: insertion of other stimuli before, during, and after CS. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1982 Apr;8(2):187–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. LaFiette M. H., Fantino E. Responding on concurrent-chains schedules in open and closed economies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 May;51(3):329–342. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. Mazur J. E. Effects of intertrial reinforcers on self-control choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jan;61(1):83–96. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. Squires N., Fantino E. A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Jan;15(1):27–38. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.15-27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Williams B. A., Dunn R. Preference for conditioned reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Jan;55(1):37–46. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Williams W. A., Fantino E. Response-dependent prechoice effects on foraging-related choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 May;65(3):619–641. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Yin H., Barnet R. C., Miller R. R. Trial spacing and trial distribution effects in Pavlovian conditioning: contributions of a comparator mechanism. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1994 Apr;20(2):123–134. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.20.2.123. [DOI] [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