Influence of temporal context on value in the multiple-chains and successive-encounters procedures

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 309-328

  O'Daly, Matthew ^a   Angulo, Samuel ^a   Gipson, Cassandra ^a   Fantino, Edmund ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Chain schedule; Choice; Context of reinforcement; Delay reduction theory; Key peck; Pigeons; Stimulus value

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; CONDITIONING; DECISION MAKING; PHYSIOLOGY; PIGEONS AND DOVES; REINFORCEMENT; TEMPORAL LOBE;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLUMBIDAE; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; TEMPORAL LOBE;

EID: 33744795764     PISSN: 00225002     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2006.68-05     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abarca, N., & Fantino, E. (1982). Choice and foraging. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 117-134.
2. Belke, T. W. (1992). Stimulus preference and the transitivity of preference. Animal Learning and Behavior, 20, 401-406.
3. Case, D. A., & Fantino, E. (1981). The delay reduction hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement and punishment: Observing behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 93-108.
4. Case, D. A., & Fantino, E. (1989). Instructions and reinforcement in the observing behavior of adults and children. Learning and Motivation, 20, 373-412.
5. Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging: The marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9, 129-136.
6. Clement, T. S., Feltus, J. R., Kaiser, D. H., & Zentall, T. R. (2000). "Work ethic" in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 100-106.
7. Clement, T. S., & Zentall, T. R. (2002). Second-order contrast based on the expectation of effort and reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 28, 64-74.
8. Collier, G. H., & Rovee-Collier, C. K. (1981). A comparative analysis of optimal foraging behavior: Laboratory simulations. In A. C. Kamil, & T. D. Sargent (Eds.), Foraging behavior: Ecological, ethological, and psychological approaches (pp. 39-76). New York: Garland STPM Press.
9. Dorrance, B. R., & Zentall, T. R. (1999). Within-event learning contributes to value transfer in simultaneous instrumental discriminations by pigeons. Animal Learning and Behavior, 27, 206-210.
10. Fantino, E. (1969). Choice and the rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 723-730.
11. Fantino, E. (1977). Conditioned reinforcement: Choice and information. In W. K. Honig, & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 313-339). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12. Fantino, E. (1981). Contiguity, response strength, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. In P. Harzem, & M. D. Zeiler (Eds.), Advances in analysis of behavior: Vol. 2. Predictability, correlation, and contiguity (pp. 169-201). Chichester, England: Wiley.
13. Fantino, E. (1982). Effect of initial-link length on responding in terminal link. Behaviour Analysis Letters, 20, 65-70.
14. Fantino, E. (2000). Delay-reduction theory - the case for temporal context: Comment on Grace and Savastano (2000). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 444-446.
15. Fantino, E. (2001). Context: A central concept. Behavioural Processes, 54, 95-110.
16. Fantino, E., & Abarca, N. (1985). Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 315-362.
17. Fantino, E., & Case, D. A. (1983). Human observing: Maintained by stimuli correlated with reinforcement but not extinction. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 193-210.
18. Fantino, E., & Dunn, R. (1983). The delay reduction hypothesis: Extension to three-alternative choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 9, 132-146.
19. Fantino, E., & Goldschmidt, J. N. (2000). Differences, not ratios, control choice in an experimental analogue to foraging. Psychological Science, 11, 229-233.
20. Gibbon, J. (1977). Scalar expectancy theory and Weber's law in animal timing. Psychological Review, 84, 279-325.
21. Gibbon, J. (1995). Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 208-215.
22. Grace, R. C. (1994). A contextual model of concurrent-chains choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 113-129.
23. Grace, R. C., & Savastano, H. I. (1997). Transfer tests of stimulus value in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 93-115.
24. Grace, R. C., & Savastano, H. I. (2000). Temporal context and conditioned reinforcement value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 427-443.
25. Ito, M., & Asaki, K. (1982). Choice behavior in rats in a concurrent-chains schedule: Amount and delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 383-392.
26. Lea, S. E. G. (1979). Foraging and reinforcement schedules in the pigeon: Optimal and non-optimal aspects of choice. Animal Behaviour, 27, 875-886.
27. Mazur, J. E. (1995). Conditioned reinforcement and choice with delayed and uncertain primary reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 139-150.
28. Navarick, D. J., & Fantino, E. (1976). Self-control and general models of choice, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 75-87.
29. O'Daly, M., Meyer, S., & Fantino, E. (2005). Value of conditioned reinforcers as a function of temporal context. Learning and Motivation, 36, 42-59.
30. Spetch, M. L., & Dunn, R. (1987). Choice between reliable and unreliable outcomes: Mixed percentage reinforcement in concurrent chains. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 57-72.
31. Squires, N., & Fantino, E. (1971). A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 27-38.
32. Williams, B. A., & Bell, M. C. (1996). Changeover behavior and preference in concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 513-526.
33. Williams, B. A., & Bell, M. C. (1999). Preference after training with differential changeover delays. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 45-55.
34. Wixted, J. (1989). Nonhuman short-term memory: A quantitative reanalysis of selected findings. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 409-426.
35. Zentall, T. R., Sherburne, L. M., Roper, K. L., & Kraemer, P. J. (1996). Value transfer in a simultaneous discrimination appears to result from within-event Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 68-75.