https://users.ox.ac.uk/~snikwad/resources/Publication4.pdf

Battery hens name their price: Consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’

When foragers discount the future: constraint or adaptation?

Research findings on addiction are contradictory. According to biographical records and widely used diagnostic manuals, addicts use drugs compulsively, meaning that drug use is out of control and independent of its aversive consequences. This account is supported by studies that show significant heritabilities for alcoholism and other addictions and by laboratory experiments in which repeated administration of addictive drugs caused changes in neural substrates associated with reward. Epidemiological and experimental data, however, show that the consequences of drug consumption can significantly modify drug intake in addicts. The disease model can account for the compulsive features of addiction, but not occasions in which price and punishment reduced drug consumption in addicts. Conversely, learning models of addiction can account for the influence of price and punishment, but not compulsive drug taking. The occasion for this target article is that recent developments in behavioral choice theory resolve the apparent contradictions in the addiction literature. The basic argument includes the following four statements: First, repeated consumption of an addictive drug decreases its future value and the future value of competing activities. Second, the frequency of an activity is a function of its relative (not absolute) value. This implies that an activity that reduces the values of competing behaviors can increase in frequency even if its own value also declines. Third, a recent experiment (Heyman & Tanz 1995) shows that the effective reinforcement contingencies are relative to a frame of reference, and this frame of reference can change so as to favor optimal or suboptimal choice. Fourth, if the frame of reference is local, reinforcement contingencies will favor excessive drug use, but if the frame of reference is global, the reinforcement contingencies will favor controlled drug use. The transition from a global to a local frame of reference explains relapse and other compulsive features of addiction.

https://geneheyman.com/pdf/Resolving%20the%20contradictions%20of%20addiction.pdf

Resolving the contradictions of addiction.

Substitutability in time allocation.

Starting from an initial (baseline) budget line, income-compensated price changes always resulted in substitution effects consistent with the Slutsky-Hicks theory. This behavior cannot be explained by a simple random-behavior model. Similar changes in relative prices that did not originate from the initial (baseline) budget line resulted in "undersubstitution effects": The composition of consumption changed in the expected direction, but the magnitude of change was not large enough to be consistent with the initial commodity bundle chosen. These undersubstitution effects are not explainable by shifting preference patterns or anchoring effects found in inconsistent choice sequences with human subjects.

Commodity-Choice Behavior with Pigeons as Subjects

Reinforcers under typical concurrent variable-interval, variable-ratio schedules may be (a) earned and obtained during the variable-interval component, (b) earned and obtained during the variable-ratio component, or (c) earned during the variable-ratio component and obtained during the variable-interval component. Categories a and b, which have no bearing on matching versus maximizing accounts of choice, were set at zero. The rate of Category c reinforcers and the duration of a changeover delay were varied. Simple matching, which predicts exclusive choice of the variable-interval component, and strict maximizing of overall reinforcement rate, which predicts a bias towards the variable-ratio component, were both disconfirmed: Subjects spent approximately 25% of their time in the variable-ratio component, contrary to the matching prediction, but earned only about one third of the reinforcers predicted by strict maximizing. However, maximizing describes the findings functionally in terms of discounting of delayed reinforcers; matching may describe the data in terms of a restructuring of the alternatives. Matching and maximizing are not competing theories about the fundamental nature of choice, but compatible points of view that may reveal environmental function and behavioral structure.

/pdf/is-there-a-decisive-test-between-matching-and-maximizing-51apxose9p.pdf

Howard Rachlin

Papers

Is there a decisive test between matching and maximizing

CHAPTER 8 – Consumer Demand Theory Applied to Choice Behavior of Rats1