Literature DB >> 21871951

Deciding when to "cash in" when outcomes are continuously improving: an escalating interest task.

Michael E Young1, Tara L Webb, Eric A Jacobs.   

Abstract

A first-person shooter video game was adapted for the study of choice between smaller sooner and larger later outcomes. Participants chose when to fire a weapon that increased in damage potential over a 10s interval, an escalating interest situation. Across two experiments, participants demonstrated sensitivity to the nature of the mathematical function that defined the relationship between waiting and damage potential. In Experiment 1, people tended to wait longer when doing so allowed them to eliminate targets more quickly. In Experiment 2, people tended to wait longer to increase the probability of a constant magnitude outcome than to increase the magnitude of a 100% certain outcome that was matched for the same expected value (i.e., probability times magnitude). The two experiments demonstrated sensitivity to the way in which an outcome improves when the outcome is continuously available. The results also demonstrate that this new video game task is useful for generating sensitivity to delay to reinforcement over time scales that are typically used in nonhuman animal studies.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21871951      PMCID: PMC3523357          DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  35 in total

1.  Delay discounting of money and alcohol in actively using alcoholics, currently abstinent alcoholics, and controls.

Authors:  N M Petry
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology.

Authors:  E BRUNSWIK
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1955-05       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 3.  A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards.

Authors:  Leonard Green; Joel Myerson
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Delay discounting of real and hypothetical rewards III: steady-state assessments, forced-choice trials, and all real rewards.

Authors:  Carla H Lagorio; Gregory J Madden
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2005-05-31       Impact factor: 1.777

5.  Notes on discounting.

Authors:  Howard Rachlin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Moderate drug use and delay discounting: a comparison of heavy, light, and never smokers.

Authors:  Matthew W Johnson; Warren K Bickel; Forest Baker
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.157

7.  Delay of gratification in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus).

Authors:  James R Anderson; Hika Kuroshima; Kazuo Fujita
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.231

8.  Exchange delays and impulsive choice in adult humans.

Authors:  C Hyten; G J Madden; D P Field
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Perceptual accuracy and conflicting effects of certainty on risk-taking behaviour.

Authors:  Sharoni Shafir; Taly Reich; Erez Tsur; Ido Erev; Arnon Lotem
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Measurement of delay discounting using trial-by-trial consequences.

Authors:  Scott D. Lane; Don R. Cherek; Cynthia J. Pietras; Oleg V. Tcheremissine
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2003-10-31       Impact factor: 1.777

View more
  8 in total

1.  Sensitivity to changing contingencies in an impulsivity task.

Authors:  Michael E Young; Tara L Webb; Jillian M Rung; Eric A Jacobs
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Gamification: The Intersection between Behavior Analysis and Game Design Technologies.

Authors:  Zachary H Morford; Benjamin N Witts; Kenneth J Killingsworth; Mark P Alavosius
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2014-04-29

3.  The hybrid delay task: can capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) sustain a delay after an initial choice to do so?

Authors:  Fabio Paglieri; Valentina Focaroli; Jessica Bramlett; Valeria Tierno; Joseph M McIntyre; Elsa Addessi; Theodore A Evans; Michael J Beran
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 1.777

4.  Training Tolerance to Delay Using the Escalating Interest Task.

Authors:  Jillian M Rung; Michael E Young
Journal:  Psychol Rec       Date:  2014-09

5.  Magnitude effects for experienced rewards at short delays in the escalating interest task.

Authors:  Michael E Young; Tara L Webb; Steven C Sutherland; Eric A Jacobs
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-04

6.  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

7.  Outcome probability versus magnitude: when waiting benefits one at the cost of the other.

Authors:  Michael E Young; Tara L Webb; Jillian M Rung; Anthony W McCoy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Sex differences in the inference and perception of causal relations within a video game.

Authors:  Michael E Young
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-08-22
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.