Level of deprivation does not affect degree of discounting in pigeons

Oliveira, Luís; Calvert, Amanda L.; Green, Leonard; Myerson, Joel

doi:10.3758/s13420-012-0092-4

Cited by 20 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Oliveira et al (2013) proposed that choice in nonhuman animals may well be influenced more by relative, rather than absolute, rates of reinforcement, consistent with the matching law (Herrnstein, 1970). Specifically, in the context of the effect of deprivation on discounting rate, they suggested that deprivation in animals might result in proportionally equivalent changes in the subjective value of both reinforcer alternatives.…”

Section: Generality Of Discountingmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Richards et al (1997) found no effect of water deprivation on rats’ discounting rates, and Ostaszewski and colleagues did not observe a consistent effect of food deprivation in rats (Ostaszewski, Karzel, & Bialaszek, 2004; Ostaszewski, Karzel, & Szafranska, 2003). Oliveira, Calvert, Green, and Myerson (2013) manipulated food deprivation in pigeons in two ways. In their first experiment, food deprivation was manipulated by varying free-feeding body weight (i.e., discounting was studied at both 75% and 95% of free-feeding body weight), and in their second experiment, food deprivation was manipulated by varying time since the last feeding (i.e., discounting was studied after both 1 and 23 hours of food deprivation).…”

Section: Generality Of Discountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

Vanderveldt¹,

Oliveira

Green

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

Self Cite

117

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delay discounting refers to the decrease in subjective value of an outcome as the time to its receipt increases. Across species and situations, animals discount delayed rewards, and their discounting is well-described by a hyperboloid function. The current review begins with a comparison of discounting models and the procedures used to assess delay discounting in nonhuman animals. We next discuss the generality of discounting, reviewing the effects of different variables on the degree of discounting delayed reinforcers by nonhuman animals. Despite the many similarities in discounting observed between human and nonhuman animals, several differences have been proposed (e.g., the magnitude effect; nonhuman animals discount over a matter of seconds whereas humans report willing to wait months, if not years before receiving a reward), raising the possibility of fundamental species differences in intertemporal choice. After evaluating these differences, we discuss delay discounting from an adaptationist perspective. The pervasiveness of discounting across species and situations suggests it is a fundamental process underlying decision making.

show abstract

Section: Generality Of Discountingmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Generality Of Discountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

Vanderveldt¹,

Oliveira

Green

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

Self Cite

117

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research with humans also suggests that lower income levels (i.e., greater deprivation) may be associated with steeper delay discounting functions, indicating that impulsiveness might increase in conditions of economic deprivation (e.g., Green, Myerson, Lichtman, Rosen, & Fry, 1996; but see Oliveira, Calvert, Green, & Myerson, 2013). Although the evidence of the effects of deprivation on discounting in animals is mixed (e.g., Bradshaw & Szabadi, 1992;Eisenberger, Masterson, & Lowman, 1982;Oliveira et al, 2013), Laude, Pattison, and Zentall (2012) found that deprivation did affect suboptimal choice in pigeons. They presented pigeons with a choice between signalled 50% food (the suboptimal alternative) and unsignalled 75% food (the optimal alternative).…”

Section: Factors Related To Self-controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

When good news leads to bad choices

McDevitt

Dunn

Spetch

et al. 2016

Jrnl Exper Analysis Behavior

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons and other animals sometimes deviate from optimal choice behavior when given informative signals for delayed outcomes. For example, when pigeons are given a choice between an alternative that always leads to food after a delay and an alternative that leads to food only half of the time after a delay, preference changes dramatically depending on whether the stimuli during the delays are correlated with (signal) the outcomes or not. With signaled outcomes, pigeons show a much greater preference for the suboptimal alternative than with unsignaled outcomes. Key variables and research findings related to this phenomenon are reviewed, including the effects of durations of the choice and delay periods, probability of reinforcement, and gaps in the signal. We interpret the available evidence as reflecting a preference induced by signals for good news in a context of uncertainty. Other explanations are briefly summarized and compared.

show abstract

“…In contrast, experiments with rats, pigeons, and primates all place the subjects under some level of restriction; however, the various levels are associated with varied results (for review, see Richards et al, , Experiment 2). Multiple studies have assessed the effects of manipulating restriction on the rate of discounting for food and water with rats (Ostaszewski, Karzel, & Szafranska, ; Richards et al, ) and for food with pigeons (Oliveira et al, ). All three experiments found that no matter how restriction of food or water was manipulated, there was no systematic difference on discounting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of the combination of factors such as delay and amount of the outcome, choice behavior (e.g., choosing between a smaller-sooner and larger-later reward) would appear difficult to predict. The discounting framework has allowed for the study of more complex choice behavior, like the function of delay on choice behavior (e.g., Bickel, Odum, & Madden, 1999;Calvert, Green, & Myerson, 2010;Green, Fry, & Myerson, 1994;Green, Myerson, Holt, Slevin, & Estle, 2004;Mazur, 2000;Myerson & Green, 1995;Oliveira, Calvert, Green, & Myerson, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Delay discounting in the pigeon: In search of a magnitude effect

Holt

Wolf

2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The magnitude effect, where larger outcomes are discounted proportionally less than smaller outcomes, is a well‐established phenomenon in delay discounting by human participants. To this point in the literature magnitude effects have not been reliably evidenced in nonhuman animals. , however, used a concurrent‐chains arrangement with pigeon and found evidence for a magnitude effect. Grace et al. suggested that in many delay discounting experimental arrangements with nonhuman animals (e.g., adjusting amount, adjusting delay) the organism is not given the opportunity to directly compare outcomes of different sizes. They suggest that because of the lack of direct comparison it is difficult for the organism to determine the relative size of each outcome, which in turn mutes the effect of the amount differences between outcomes. As a test of this “comparison hypothesis,” the present experiment was conducted to assess whether the magnitude effect would be evidenced in pigeon when using an adjusting amount procedure where outcomes of different amounts were presented proximally. In the present arrangement, pigeons were presented two choice panels in an operant chamber where each panel was associated with an independent adjusting amount delay discounting task, but with differing outcome amounts (i.e., a 32‐food pellet panel and an 8‐food pellet panel). In this arrangement the choice panels alternated in their availability within a session from trial block to trial block. The present findings indicate no reliable effect of amount, even when the outcomes were proximal and thus readily comparable. This result suggests that the lack of magnitude effect is not driven by the organism's ability to compare the difference in amount between choice alternatives.

show abstract

Level of deprivation does not affect degree of discounting in pigeons

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—does it matter?

When good news leads to bad choices

Delay discounting in the pigeon: In search of a magnitude effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About