Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1995 Nov;64(3):331–359. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-331

Behavioral economics of concurrent ethanol-sucrose and sucrose reinforcement in the rat: effects of altering variable-ratio requirements.

N M Petry 1, G M Heyman 1
PMCID: PMC1350141  PMID: 8551192

Abstract

These experiments examined the own-price and cross-price elasticities of a drug (ethanol mixed with 10% sucrose) and a nondrug (10% sucrose) reinforcer. Rats were presented with ethanol-sucrose and sucrose, both available on concurrent independent variable-ratio (VR) 8 schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, the variable ratio for the ethanol mix was systematically raised to 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, and 30, while the variable ratio for sucrose remained at 8. Five of the 6 rats increased ethanol-reinforced responding at some of the increments and defended baseline levels of ethanol intake. However, the rats eventually ceased ethanol-reinforced responding at the highest variable ratios. Sucrose-reinforced responding was not systematically affected by the changes in variable ratio for ethanol mix. In Experiment 2, the variable ratio for sucrose was systematically increased while the ethanol-sucrose response requirement remained constant. The rats decreased sucrose-reinforced responding and increased ethanol-sucrose-reinforced responding, resulting in a two- to 10-fold increase in ethanol intake. Experiment 3 examined the substitutability of qualitatively identical reinforcers: 10% sucrose versus 10% sucrose. Increases in variable-ratio requirements at the preferred lever resulted in a switch in lever preference. Experiment 4 examined whether 10% ethanol mix substituted for 5% ethanol mix, with increasing variable-ratio requirements of the 5% ethanol. All rats eventually responded predominantly for the 10% ethanol mix, but total amount of ethanol consumed per session did not systematically change. In Experiment 5, the variable-ratio requirements for both ethanol and sucrose were simultaneously raised to VR 120; 7 of 8 rats increased ethanol-reinforced responding while decreasing sucrose-reinforced responding. These data suggest that, within this ethanol-induction procedure and within certain parameters, demand for ethanol-sucrose was relatively inelastic, and sucrose consumption was independent of ethanol-sucrose consumption. Demand for sucrose, on the other hand, was relatively elastic, and ethanol-sucrose readily substituted for it. The results are discussed in terms of applying a behavioral economic approach to relationships between drug and nondrug reinforcers.

Full text

PDF
333

Selected References

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

  1. Bickel W. K., DeGrandpre R. J., Higgins S. T. The behavioral economics of concurrent drug reinforcers: a review and reanalysis of drug self-administration research. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1995 Apr;118(3):250–259. doi: 10.1007/BF02245952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bickel W. K., DeGrandpre R. J., Hughes J. R., Higgins S. T. Behavioral economics of drug self-administration. II. A unit-price analysis of cigarette smoking. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Mar;55(2):145–154. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.55-145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bickel W. K., Higgins S. T., Stitzer M. L. Choice of blind methadone dose increases by methadone maintenance patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1986 Oct;18(2):165–171. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(86)90049-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Carroll M. E., Boe I. N. Increased intravenous drug self-administration during deprivation of other reinforcers. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1982 Sep;17(3):563–567. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(82)90319-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carroll M. E. Concurrent access to two concentrations of orally delivered phencyclidine: effects of feeding conditions. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 May;47(3):347–362. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1987.47-347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carroll M. E., Lac S. T. Autoshaping i.v. cocaine self-administration in rats: effects of nondrug alternative reinforcers on acquisition. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1993;110(1-2):5–12. doi: 10.1007/BF02246944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carroll M. E., Lac S. T., Nygaard S. L. A concurrently available nondrug reinforcer prevents the acquisition or decreases the maintenance of cocaine-reinforced behavior. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1989;97(1):23–29. doi: 10.1007/BF00443407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carroll M. E. The economic context of drug and non-drug reinforcers affects acquisition and maintenance of drug-reinforced behavior and withdrawal effects. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1993 Sep;33(2):201–210. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(93)90061-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Catania A. C., Reynolds G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 May;11(3 Suppl):327–383. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1968.11-s327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. DeGrandpre R. J., Bickel W. K., Higgins S. T., Hughes J. R. A behavioral economic analysis of concurrently available money and cigarettes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Mar;61(2):191–201. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Deutsch J. A., Eisner A. Ethanol self-administration in the rat induced by forced drinking of ethanol. Behav Biol. 1977 May;20(1):81–90. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6773(77)90549-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dole V. P. On the relevance of animal models to alcoholism in humans. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1986 Aug;10(4):361–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1986.tb05107.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Felton M., Lyon D. O. The post-reinforcement pause. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Mar;9(2):131–134. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1966.9-131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg S. R., Hoffmeister F., Schlichting U. U., Wuttke W. A comparison of pentobarbital and cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys: effects of dose and fixed-ratio parameter. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1971 Nov;179(2):277–283. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Green Leonard, Freed Debra E. The substitutability of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):141–158. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Griffiths R. R., Brady J. V., Snell J. D. Progressive-ratio performance maintained by drug infusions: comparison of cocaine, diethylpropion, chlorphentermine, and fenfluramine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1978 Jan 31;56(1):5–13. doi: 10.1007/BF00571401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Griffiths R. R., Henningfield J. E., Bigelow G. E. Human cigarette smoking: manipulation of number of puffs per bout, interbout interval and nicotine dose. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1982 Feb;220(2):256–265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):107–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Heyman G. M. Ethanol regulated preference in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1993;112(2-3):259–269. doi: 10.1007/BF02244920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Higgins S. T., Bickel W. K., Hughes J. R. Influence of an alternative reinforcer on human cocaine self-administration. Life Sci. 1994;55(3):179–187. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(94)00878-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Higgins S. T., Budney A. J., Bickel W. K., Foerg F. E., Donham R., Badger G. J. Incentives improve outcome in outpatient behavioral treatment of cocaine dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994 Jul;51(7):568–576. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950070060011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Higgins S. T., Delaney D. D., Budney A. J., Bickel W. K., Hughes J. R., Foerg F., Fenwick J. W. A behavioral approach to achieving initial cocaine abstinence. Am J Psychiatry. 1991 Sep;148(9):1218–1224. doi: 10.1176/ajp.148.9.1218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Higgins S. T., Stitzer M. L., Bigelow G. E., Liebson I. A. Contingent methadone delivery: effects on illicit-opiate use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1986 Jul;17(4):311–322. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(86)90080-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hursh S. R. Behavioral economics of drug self-administration and drug abuse policy. J Exp Anal Behav. 1991 Sep;56(2):377–393. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1991.56-377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hursh S. R. Behavioral economics of drug self-administration: an introduction. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1993 Sep;33(2):165–172. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(93)90058-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hursh S. R. Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Sep;34(2):219–238. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hursh S. R., Natelson B. H. Electrical brain stimulation and food reinforcement dissociated by demand elasticity. Physiol Behav. 1981 Mar;26(3):509–515. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(81)90180-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Iglauer C., Woods J. H. Concurrent performances: reinforcement by different doses of intravenous cocaine in rhesus monkeys. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jul;22(1):179–196. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.22-179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. KAHN M., STELLAR E. Alcohol preference in normal and anosmic rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1960 Dec;53:571–575. doi: 10.1037/h0043026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lea S. E., Roper T. J. Demand for food on fixed-ratio schedules as a function of the quality of concurrently available reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 Mar;27(2):371–380. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lester D., Freed E. X. Criteria for an animal model of alcoholism. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1973 Jan-Feb;1(1):103–107. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(73)90062-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Meisch R. A., Thompson T. Ethanol as a reinforcer: effects of fixed-ratio size and food deprivation. Psychopharmacologia. 1973 Jan 1;28(2):171–183. doi: 10.1007/BF00421402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nadelmann E. A. Drug prohibition in the United States: costs, consequences, and alternatives. Science. 1989 Sep 1;245(4921):939–947. doi: 10.1126/science.2772647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Nader M. A., Woolverton W. L. Effects of increasing the magnitude of an alternative reinforcer on drug choice in a discrete-trials choice procedure. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1991;105(2):169–174. doi: 10.1007/BF02244304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Roehrs T. A., Samson H. H. Ethanol reinforced behavior assessed with a concurrent schedule. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1981 Oct;15(4):539–544. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(81)90204-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Samson H. H. Initiation of ethanol reinforcement using a sucrose-substitution procedure in food- and water-sated rats. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1986 Aug;10(4):436–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1986.tb05120.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Samson H. H., Pfeffer A. O., Tolliver G. A. Oral ethanol self-administration in rats: models of alcohol-seeking behavior. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1988 Oct;12(5):591–598. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1988.tb00248.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Samson H. H., Roehrs T. A., Tolliver G. A. Ethanol reinforced responding in the rat: a concurrent analysis using sucrose as the alternate choice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1982 Aug;17(2):333–339. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(82)90088-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Samson H. H., Tolliver G. A., Roehrs T. A. Ethanol reinforced responding in the rat: relation of ethanol introduction to later ethanol responding. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1983 Jun;18(6):895–900. doi: 10.1016/s0091-3057(83)80012-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schwarz-Stevens K., Samson H. H., Tolliver G. A., Lumeng L., Li T. K. The effects of ethanol initiation procedures on ethanol reinforced behavior in the alcohol-preferring rat. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1991 Mar;15(2):277–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.1991.tb01869.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stitzer M. L., Bickel W. K., Bigelow G. E., Liebson I. A. Effect of methadone dose contingencies on urinalysis test results of polydrug-abusing methadone-maintenance patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1986 Dec;18(4):341–348. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(86)90097-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stitzer M. L., Iguchi M. Y., Felch L. J. Contingent take-home incentive: effects on drug use of methadone maintenance patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992 Dec;60(6):927–934. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.60.6.927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Vuchinich R. E., Tucker J. A. Behavioral theories of choice as a framework for studying drinking behavior. J Abnorm Psychol. 1983 Nov;92(4):408–416. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.92.4.408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Vuchinich R. E., Tucker J. A. Contributions from behavioral theories of choice to an analysis of alcohol abuse. J Abnorm Psychol. 1988 May;97(2):181–195. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.97.2.181. [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