Literature DB >> 24924323

Preferences for constant duration delays and constant sized rewards in human subjects.

A Kohn1, W K Kohn2, J E Staddon3.   

Abstract

In four experiments, human subjects played a simple video game in which they chose between two buttons that provided reinforcement either on constant or variable schedules. In one condition of Experiment 1, subjects strongly preferred constant sized rewards over variable sized rewards. In the two other conditions, subjects preferred constant duration delays-to-reinforcement over variable duration delays-to-reinforcement. In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed to different parameters and, in Experiment 3, they were exposed to a modified temporal procedure. In each case, subjects continued to prefer constant sized rewards and constant duration delays. The preference for constant duration delays contradicts analogous research showing that pigeons and rats prefer variable duration delays over constant duration delays. In Experiment 4, we explored this difference by omitting the prompts that segmented the phases of the procedure. Under these conditions, the subjects preferred the variable duration delays. Based on these results, we argue that in the absence of effective signals, both people and animals may be forced to use secondary choice strategies such as a proportional waiting rule. The presence of prompts, however, enables people to segment the choice phase and directly choose between the fixed and variable duration delays.
Copyright © 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2002        PMID: 24924323     DOI: 10.1016/0376-6357(92)90008-2

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


  3 in total

1.  Exploring preferences for variable delays over fixed delays to high-value food rewards as a model of food-seeking behaviours in humans.

Authors:  Laura-Jean G Stokes; Anna Davies; Paul Lattimore; Catharine Winstanley; Robert D Rogers
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-02-18       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Risky choice in pigeons and humans: a cross-species comparison.

Authors:  Carla H Lagorio; Timothy D Hackenberg
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  The role of context in risky choice.

Authors:  Stephen F Meyer; Dan R Schley; Edmund Fantino
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 1.777

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.