Literature DB >> 2921590

Theories of probabilistic reinforcement.

J E Mazur1.   

Abstract

In three experiments, pigeons chose between two alternatives that differed in the probability of reinforcement and the delay to reinforcement. A peck at a red key led to a delay of 5 s and then a possible reinforcer. A peck at a green key led to an adjusting delay and then a certain reinforcer. This delay was adjusted over trials so as to estimate an indifference point, or a duration at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. In Experiments 1 and 2, the intertrial interval was varied across conditions, and these variations had no systematic effects on choice. In Experiment 3, the stimuli that followed a choice of the red key differed across conditions. In some conditions, a red houselight was presented for 5 s after each choice of the red key. In other conditions, the red houselight was present on reinforced trials but not on nonreinforced trials. Subjects exhibited greater preference for the red key in the latter case. The results were used to evaluate four different theories of probabilistic reinforcement. The results were most consistent with the view that the value or effectiveness of a probabilistic reinforcer is determined by the total time per reinforcer spent in the presence of stimuli associated with the probabilistic alternative. According to this view, probabilistic reinforcers are analogous to reinforcers that are delivered after variable delays.

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2921590      PMCID: PMC1338894          DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-87

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


  12 in total

1.  APERIODICITY AS A FACTOR IN CHOICE.

Authors:  R J HERRNSTEIN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1964-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  DECISION MAKING BY RATS: UNCERTAIN OUTCOME CHOICES.

Authors:  F A LOGAN
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1965-04

3.  Discrete-trial choice in pigeons: Effects of reinforcer magnitude.

Authors:  J S Young
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1981-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Preference for mixed versus constant delay of reinforcement.

Authors:  R A Cicerone
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Impulse control in pigeons.

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

6.  Preference for mixed versus constant delays of reinforcement: Effect of probability of the short, mixed delay.

Authors:  D P Rider
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Preference for mixed- versus fixed-ratio schedules.

Authors:  E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1967-01       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Decision-making in the presence of risk.

Authors:  M J Machina
Journal:  Science       Date:  1987-05-01       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Effects of delayed reinforcement in a concurrent situation.

Authors:  S H Chung
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1965-11       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Probability and delay of reinforcement as factors in discrete-trial choice.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 2.468

View more
  39 in total

1.  Comparing preference and resistance to change in constant- and variable-duration schedule components.

Authors:  R C Grace; J A Nevin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of variability, time between trials, and conditioned reinforcers.

Authors:  J E Mazur; A Romano
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Choice with probabilistic reinforcement: effects of delay and conditioned reinforcers.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Effects of reinforcer probability, delay, and response requirements on the choices of rats and pigeons: possible species differences.

Authors:  James E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement.

Authors:  T W Belke; M L Spetch
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Postreward delays and systematic biases in measures of animal temporal discounting.

Authors:  Tommy C Blanchard; John M Pearson; Benjamin Y Hayden
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Context effects on choice.

Authors:  J N Goldshmidt; K M Lattal; E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Choice with delayed and probabilistic reinforcers: effects of prereinforcer and postreinforcer stimuli.

Authors:  J E Mazur
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Effects of time between trials on rats' and pigeons' choices with probabilistic delayed reinforcers.

Authors:  James E Mazur; Dawn R Biondi
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Test-retest reliability and construct validity of the Experiential Discounting Task.

Authors:  Rochelle R Smits; Jeffrey S Stein; Patrick S Johnson; Amy L Odum; Gregory J Madden
Journal:  Exp Clin Psychopharmacol       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 3.157

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.