Literature DB >> 16812762

Self-control and impulsiveness in children and adults: Effects of food preferences.

L B Forzano, A W Logue.   

Abstract

Experiment 1 used 6 preschool boys and Experiment 2 used 6 adult women to explore the effects of food preference on humans' choice in self-control paradigms. The boys showed a higher proportion of responses for more delayed, larger reinforcers (a measure of self-control) when those choices resulted in receipt of the most preferred food compared to when those choices resulted in the least preferred food. Further, the boys chose the less delayed, smaller reinforcers significantly more often when only those choices, as opposed to both choices, resulted in the most preferred food. Conversely, they chose the more delayed, larger reinforcers significantly more often when only those choices, as opposed to both choices, resulted in the most preferred food. Finally, the women demonstrated significantly less sensitivity to reinforcer amount relative to sensitivity to reinforcer delay (another measure of self-control) when they had a higher preference for the juice received as the less delayed, smaller reinforcer than for the juice received as the more delayed, larger reinforcer. Together, the results show that subjects' food preferences can influence self-control for food reinforcers.

Entities:  

Year:  1995        PMID: 16812762      PMCID: PMC1349835          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1995.64-33

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav        ISSN: 0022-5002            Impact factor:   2.468


  20 in total

1.  Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies.

Authors:  E Shimoff; A C Catania; B A Matthews
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Contrast and undermatching as a function of reinforcer duration and quality during multiple schedules.

Authors:  R H Ettinger; F K McSweeney; W D Norman
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1981-05       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers.

Authors:  V Hollard; M C Davison
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1971-11       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Impulse control in pigeons.

Authors:  G W Ainslie
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Behavioral contrast in rats with different reinforcers and different response topographies.

Authors:  R J Beninger; S B Kendall
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-11       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon.

Authors:  H L Miller
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Commitment, choice and self-control.

Authors:  H Rachlin; L Green
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1972-01       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Concurrent-schedule performance: Effects of relative and overall reinforcer rate.

Authors:  B Alsop; D Elliffe
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Humans' sensitivity to variation in reinforcer amount: Effects of the method of reinforcer delivery.

Authors:  G R King; A W Logue
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Self-control in adult humans: variation in positive reinforcer amount and delay.

Authors:  A W Logue; T E Peña-Correal; M L Rodriguez; E Kabela
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Temporal discounting: basic research and the analysis of socially important behavior.

Authors:  T S Critchfield; S H Kollins
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2001

2.  Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference.

Authors:  Iser G DeLeon; Julie A Chase; Michelle A Frank-Crawford; Abbey B Carreau-Webster; Mandy M Triggs; Christopher E Bullock; Heather K Jennett
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2014-04-30

3.  Comparing hyperbolic, delay-amount sensitivity and present-bias models of delay discounting.

Authors:  Suzanne H Mitchell; Vanessa B Wilson; Sarah L Karalunas
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 1.777

4.  Rats show preference for delayed rewards on the radial maze.

Authors:  Miranda C Feeney; William A Roberts
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

5.  Learning to wait for more likely or just more: greater tolerance to delays of reward with increasingly longer delays.

Authors:  Jillian M Rung; Michael E Young
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.215

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.