The logistics of choice

Hyperbolae

Hyperbolic relations between independent and dependent variables are ubiquitous in the experimental analysis of behavior, mentioned in over 150 articles in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. There are two principal forms of hyperbolae: The first describes the relation between response rate and reinforcement rate on variable-interval schedules of reinforcement; it rises asymptotically toward a maximum. The second describes the relation between the current equivalent value of an incentive and its delay or (im)probability; it falls from a maximum toward an asymptote of 0. Where do these come from? What do their parameters mean? How are they related? This article answers the first two questions and addresses the last.

Theory of reinforcement schedules

The three principles of reinforcement are (1) events such as incentives and reinforcers increase the activity of an organism; (2) that activity is bounded by competition from other responses; and (3) animals approach incentives and their signs, guided by their temporal and physical conditions, together called the "contingencies of reinforcement." Mathematical models of each of these principles comprised mathematical principles of reinforcement (MPR; Killeen, 1994). Over the ensuing decades, MPR was extended to new experimental contexts. This article reviews the basic theory and its extensions to satiation, warm-up, extinction, sign tracking, pausing, and sequential control in progressive-ratio and multiple schedules. In the latter cases, a single equation balancing target and competing responses governs behavioral contrast and behavioral momentum. Momentum is intrinsic in the fundamental equations, as behavior unspools more slowly from highly aroused responses conditioned by higher rates of incitement than it does from responses from leaner contexts. Habits are responses that have accrued substantial behavioral momentum. Operant responses, being predictors of reinforcement, are approached by making them: The sight and feel of a paw on a lever is approached by placing paw on lever, as attempted for any sign of reinforcement. Behavior in concurrent schedules is governed by approach to momentarily richer patches (melioration). Applications of MPR in behavioral pharmacology and delay discounting are noted.

Matching Behaviours and Rewards

Matching describes how behaviour is related to rewards. The matching law holds when the ratio of an individual's behaviours equals the ratio of the rewards obtained. From its origins in the study of pigeons working for food in the laboratory, the law has been applied to a range of species, both in the laboratory and outside it (e.g., human sporting decisions). Probability matching occurs when the probability of a behaviour equals the probability of being rewarded. Input matching predicts the distribution of individuals across habitats. We evaluate the rationality of the matching law and probability matching, expose the logic of matching in real-world cases, review how recent neuroscience findings relate to matching, and suggest future research directions.

Coal Is Not Black, Snow Is Not White, Food Is Not a Reinforcer: The Roles of Affordances and Dispositions in the Analysis of Behavior

Reinforcers comprise sequences of actions in context. Just as the white of snow and black of coal depend on the interaction of an organism's visual system and the reflectances in its surrounds, reinforcers depend on an organism's motivational state and the affordances-possibilities for perception and action-in its surrounds. Reinforcers are not intrinsic to things but are a relation between what the thing affords, its context, the organism, and his or her history as capitulated in their current state. Reinforcers and other affordances are potentialities rather than intrinsic features. Realizing those potentialities requires motivational operations and stimulus contexts that change the state of the organism-they change its disposition to make the desired response. An expansion of the three-term contingency is suggested in order to help keep us mindful of the importance of behavioral systems, states, emotions, and dispositions in our research programs.

Annual Research Review: On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology

BACKGROUND

Self-regulation (SR) is central to developmental psychopathology, but progress has been impeded by varying terminology and meanings across fields and literatures.

METHODS

The present review attempts to move that discussion forward by noting key sources of prior confusion such as measurement-concept confounding, and then arguing the following major points.

RESULTS

First, the field needs a domain-general construct of SR that encompasses SR of action, emotion, and cognition and involves both top-down and bottom-up regulatory processes. This does not assume a shared core process across emotion, action, and cognition, but is intended to provide clarity on the extent of various claims about kinds of SR. Second, top-down aspects of SR need to be integrated. These include (a) basic processes that develop early and address immediate conflict signals, such as cognitive control and effortful control (EC), and (b) complex cognition and strategies for addressing future conflict, represented by the regulatory application of complex aspects of executive functioning. Executive function (EF) and cognitive control are not identical to SR because they can be used for other activities, but account for top-down aspects of SR at the cognitive level. Third, impulsivity, risk-taking, and disinhibition are distinct although overlapping; a taxonomy of the kinds of breakdowns of SR associated with psychopathology requires their differentiation. Fourth, different aspects of the SR universe can be organized hierarchically in relation to granularity, development, and time. Low-level components assemble into high-level components. This hierarchical perspective is consistent across literatures.

CONCLUSIONS

It is hoped that the framework outlined here will facilitate integration and cross-talk among investigators working from different perspectives, and facilitate individual differences research on how SR relates to developmental psychopathology.

Syntax for calculation of discounting indices from the monetary choice questionnaire and probability discounting questionnaire

The 27-item Monetary Choice Questionnaire (MCQ; Kirby, Petry, & Bickel, 1999) and 30-item Probability Discounting Questionnaire (PDQ; Madden, Petry, & Johnson, 2009) are widely used, validated measures of preferences for immediate versus delayed rewards and guaranteed versus risky rewards, respectively. The MCQ measures delayed discounting by asking individuals to choose between rewards available immediately and larger rewards available after a delay. The PDQ measures probability discounting by asking individuals to choose between guaranteed rewards and a chance at winning larger rewards. Numerous studies have implicated these measures in addiction and other health behaviors. Unlike typical self-report measures, the MCQ and PDQ generate inferred hyperbolic temporal and probability discounting functions by comparing choice preferences to arrays of functions to which the individual items are preconfigured. This article provides R and SPSS syntax for processing the MCQ and PDQ. Specifically, for the MCQ, the syntax generates k values, consistency of the inferred k, and immediate choice ratios; for the PDQ, the syntax generates h indices, consistency of the inferred h, and risky choice ratios. The syntax is intended to increase the accessibility of these measures, expedite the data processing, and reduce risk for error.