Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1988 Jan;49(1):37–47. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.49-37

Estimation of indifference points with an adjusting-delay procedure.

J E Mazur 1
PMCID: PMC1338825  PMID: 3346621

Abstract

In a series of conditions, pigeons chose between 1.5 s and 3 s of access to grain, each preceded by some delay. The delay that preceded the small reinforcer was constant throughout a condition. The delay that preceded the large reinforcer was increased or decreased a number of times each session in order to estimate an "indifference point," a delay at which the subject chose each alternative about equally often. The experiment was designed to determine whether variations in any of four features of this adjusting-delay procedure would systematically alter the estimated indifference points. The four features were the total trial duration, the number of center-key responses necessary to begin a trial, the number of choice trials that preceded each change in the adjusting delay, and step size--the size of each increment and decrement in the delay. Manipulation of the first three features had no systematic effects on the indifference points. As step size was increased from 0.5 s to 6 s, within-session variability of the adjusting delay steadily increased, and the 6-s step size produced larger indifference-point estimates for some subjects. The results suggest that, within certain limits, these procedural features can be altered without affecting the indifference-point estimates, but that the use of a large step size can distort the estimates. Some theoretical implications of the relative constancy of indifference points across these procedural variations are discussed.

Full text

PDF
37

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  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. HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. LOGAN F. A. DECISION MAKING BY RATS: UNCERTAIN OUTCOME CHOICES. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1965 Apr;59:246–251. doi: 10.1037/h0021850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lea S. E. Titration of schedule parameters by pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1976 Jan;25(1):43–54. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1976.25-43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mazur J. E. Choice between single and multiple delayed reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Jul;46(1):67–77. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mazur J. E., Coe D. Tests of transitivity in choices between fixed and variable reinforcer delays. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 May;47(3):287–297. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mazur J. E. Fixed and variable ratios and delays: further tests of an equivalence rule. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1986 Apr;12(2):116–124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mazur J. E. Probability and delay of reinforcement as factors in discrete-trial choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):341–351. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mazur J. E., Snyderman M., Coe D. Influences of delay and rate of reinforcement on discrete-trial choice. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1985 Oct;11(4):565–575. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Navarick D. J., Fantino E. Transitivity as a property of choice. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Nov;18(3):389–401. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  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]
  14. WEISS B., LATIES V. G. Titration behavior on various fractional escape programs. J Exp Anal Behav. 1959 Jul;2:227–248. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1959.2-227. [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