Based on the delay-reduction hypothesis, a less profitable schedule should be rejected if its duration exceeds the mean delay to reinforcement. It should be accepted if its duration is shorter than the mean delay. This was tested for humans, using a successive-choice schedule. The accessibility of the less profitable (variable-interval 18 s) schedule was varied by changing the duration (in terms of a fixed interval) of the waiting-time component preceding its presentation. Forty-eight students were randomly assigned to three groups. In Phase 1, the duration of the less profitable schedule equaled the mean delay to reinforcement in all groups. In Phase 2, waiting time preceding the less profitable schedule was reduced in Group 1 and increased in Group 2. Thus, the schedule was correlated either with a relative delay increase (Group 1) or a delay reduction (Group 2). In Group 3, conditions remained unchanged. As predicted, acceptance of the less profitable schedule decreased in Group 1 and increased in Group 2. The increased acceptance in Group 2 was accompanied by a decreased acceptance of the more profitable (variable-interval 3 s) schedule, resembling a pattern of negative contrast. Response rates were higher under the component preceding (a) the more profitable schedule in Group 1 and (b) the less profitable schedule in Group 2. Implications for the modification of human choice behavior are discussed.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.