Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 2003 Jul;80(1):59–75. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-59

Human risky choice under temporal constraints: tests of an energy-budget model.

Cynthia J Pietras 1, Matthew L Locey 1, Timothy D Hackenberg 1
PMCID: PMC1284947  PMID: 13677609

Abstract

Risk-sensitive foraging models predict that choice between fixed and variable food delays should be influenced by an organism's energy budget. To investigate whether the predictions of these models could be extended to choice in humans, risk sensitivity in 4 adults was investigated under laboratory conditions designed to model positive and negative energy budgets. Subjects chose between fixed and variable trial durations with the same mean value. An energy requirement was modeled by requiring that five trials be completed within a limited time period for points delivered at the end of the period (block of trials) to be exchanged later for money. Manipulating the duration of this time period generated positive and negative earnings budgets (or, alternatively, "time budgets"). Choices were consistent with the predictions of energy-budget models: The fixed-delay option was strongly preferred under positive earnings-budget conditions and the variable-delay option was strongly preferred under negative earnings-budget conditions. Within-block (or trial-by-trial) choices were also frequently consistent with the predictions of a dynamic optimization model, indicating that choice was simultaneously sensitive to the temporal requirements, delays associated with fixed and variable choices on the upcoming trial, cumulative delays within the block of trials, and trial position within a block.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (162.7 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. Starlings' preferences for predictable and unpredictable delays to food. Anim Behav. 1997 Jun;53(6):1129–1142. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Case D. A., Nichols P., Fantino E. Pigeons' preference for variable-interval water reinforcement under widely varied water budgets. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Nov;64(3):299–311. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Charnov E. L. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Apr;9(2):129–136. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hackenberg T. D., Axtell S. A. Human's choices in situations of time-based diminishing returns. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 May;59(3):445–470. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hackenberg T. D., Hineline P. N. Choice in situations of time-based diminishing returns: immediate versus delayed consequences of action. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jan;57(1):67–80. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackson K., Hackenberg T. D. Token reinforcement, choice, and self-control in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jul;66(1):29–49. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.66-29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jacobs E. A., Hackenberg T. D. Humans' choices in situations of time-based diminishing returns: effects of fixed-interval duration and progressive-interval step size. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):5–19. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kirshenbaum AP, Szalda-Petree AD, Haddad NF. Risk-sensitive foraging in rats: the effects of response-effort and reward-amount manipulations on choice behavior. Behav Processes. 2000 Jul 7;50(1):9–17. doi: 10.1016/s0376-6357(00)00088-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kraft J. R., Baum W. M. Group choice: the ideal free distribution of human social behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Jul;76(1):21–42. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Logue A. W., King G. R. Self-control and impulsiveness in adult humans when food is the reinforcer. Appetite. 1991 Oct;17(2):105–120. doi: 10.1016/0195-6663(91)90066-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Madden Gregory J., Peden Blaine F., Yamaguchi Tetsuo. Human group choice: discrete-trial and free-operant tests of the ideal free distribution. J Exp Anal Behav. 2002 Jul;78(1):1–15. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2002.78-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McNamara J. M., Houston A. I. A general framework for understanding the effects of variability and interruptions on foraging behaviour. Acta Biotheor. 1987;36(1):3–22. doi: 10.1007/BF00159228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pietras C. J., Hackenberc T. D. Risk-sensitive choice in humans as a function of an earnings budget. J Exp Anal Behav. 2001 Jul;76(1):1–19. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2001.76-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Rode C., Cosmides L., Hell W., Tooby J. When and why do people avoid unknown probabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimal foraging theory. Cognition. 1999 Oct 26;72(3):269–304. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00041-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sokolowski M. B., Tonneau F., Freixa i Baqué E. The ideal free distribution in humans: an experimental test. Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Mar;6(1):157–161. doi: 10.3758/bf03210824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Stockhorst U. Effects of different accessibility of reinforcement schedules on choice in humans. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Sep;62(2):269–292. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-269. [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