Operant Hoarding: A New Paradigm for the Study of Self‐control

Abstract

In the first of four experiments, rats were exposed to a modified multiple continuous reinforcementextinction schedule during 15-min daily sessions. In one condition (saves condition) with the cuelight on, a single lever press produced a food pellet, briefly extinguished the cuelight, and started a clock. Saves (additional lever presses with interresponse times less than 1 s) produced an additional food pellet, briefly extinguished the cuelight, and restarted the interresponse time clock. The cuelight was extinguished 1 s after the last lever press and remained off during a 10-s period of extinction, during which no food pellets were delivered. In the other condition (savings account condition), the contingencies were the same except that the cuelight was extinguished and was not reilluminated after the initial lever press, and the delivery of all food pellets in the reinforcement component was delayed until the onset of extinction. In both conditions, rats made saves, but mean saves (total saves divided by the number of reinforcement components) were slightly reduced in the savings account condition. In Experiment 2, using six equally spaced 15-min sessions per day on alternate days, saves were either followed immediately with food and brief cuelight offset (saves condition) or were not reinforced at all. Mean saves were much greater when saves were reinforced. In Experiment 3, during 5-min daily sessions, saves earned a single pellet (savings account condition) or a number of pellets equal to the ordinal number of the lever press (interest condition). Rats made fewer mean saves, with little change in the food rate, when saves earned interest. In Experiment 4, the rats earned all their food in the operant situation during 24 daily 5-min sessions, these separated by 55-min intersession intervals during which no food was available; otherwise, the conditions were the same as in Experiment 3. In Experiment 4, the shift to interest for saves led to an increase in mean daily mean saves (total daily mean saves divided by the number of daily sessions) as well as to an increase in the number of food pellets delivered in each session. The results are discussed in terms of self-control and behavioral economics.

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) and pigeons (Columbia livia) are sensitive to the distance to food, but only rats request more food when distance increases

“…This is consistent with the elegant analysis of stimulus control by Zentall and Stagner, showing that conditioned reinforcers may overwhelm more ‘rational’ optimal foraging—extending to a plausible analysis of the allure of gambling (2011). Additional experiments will address this hypothesis, and hopefully integrate this paradigm with others such as Cole (1990), and with delay reduction theory used so effectively by Fantino and associates to study foraging (e.g., Abarca and Fantino, 1982; Fantino and Abarca, 1985; Ito and Fantino, 1986). The conclusion of Johnson and Collier (1999), after a series of seminal experiments on the meal patterns of rats, can serve equally well as ours: “the patterns we observed represent a compromise between minimizing foraging cost, minimizing physiological costs and maintaining total intake and body weight (p. 418)”—even if, in some cases, the compromise seemed short-sighted.…”

Excessive acquisition in hoarding

“…People who hoard must acquire things in order to clutter their homes, but is their acquisition always excessive or different from normal? In 14 case studies of hoarding involving 37 different patients, specific mention of aberrant collecting behavior was evident in 59% (22) of the cases (Cole, 1990; Cermele, Melendez-Pallitto & Pandina, 2001; Damecour & Charron, 1998; Drummond, Turner, & Reid, 1996; Fitzgerald, 1997; Frost, Steketee, Youngren & Mallya, 1998; Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg, Witzum, & Levy, 1990; Greve, Curtis, & Bianchini, 2004; Hartl & Frost, 1999; Rosenthal, 1999; Shafran & Tallis, 1996; Thomas, 1997; Vostanis & Dean, 1992). Compulsive buying, collecting free things, and occasionally stealing constituted the types of acquisition.…”

Modelos de autocontrole na análise experimental do comportamento: utilidade e crítica

“…Cole (1990), por exemplo, chamou de poupar (autocontrole em ratos) as respostas adicionais de pressão à barra no componente Razão Fixa 10 que geravam pelotas extras de alimento quando emitidas dentro de 1 s desde a décima resposta de pressão à barra que finalizava a razão. Monterosso e Ainslie (1999) lembram em um artigo teórico que além do modelo de atraso de recompensa, os procedimentos de reforçamento diferencial de responder em taxas baixas (DRL) e de automodelagem também têm sido usados na literatura animal que discute impulsividade e autocontrole, sendo o DRL mais comum em estudos da psicofarmacologia.…”