|
| Reinforcement Magnitude 2 |
| Sunday, May 30, 2004 |
| 3:30 PM–4:20 PM |
| Commonwealth |
| Area: EAB |
| Chair: Eric M. Messick (University of Waikato, New Zealand) |
| |
| Detection, Choice, and Reinforcer Magnitude |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| BRENT L. ALSOP (University of Otago), Melissa Porritt (University of Otago) |
| |
| Abstract: Pigeons were trained in a signal-detection procedure. Four levels of stimulus disparity were arranged. Relative reinforcer magnitude was varied across conditions at each disparity level. A Davison and Tustin (1978) analysis, based on the generalised matching law, found that the sensitivity of behavior to changes in the reinforcer magnitude decreased as stimulus disparity increased. |
| |
| Behavioral Economics: The Effect of Post-feeding on the Inferior-good Effect |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| ERIC M. MESSICK (University of Waikato, New Zealand), Therese Mary Foster (University of Waikato, New Zealand), William Temple (University of Waikato, New Zealand) |
| |
| Abstract: Inferior goods differ from normal or superior goods in that the former are lower in cost (response requirement) and lower in some aspect of “value” such as taste while the latter are higher in cost and higher in this value. In low-income conditions (low number of reinforcers per session), the consumption of an inferior good is relatively high compared to consumption of a superior or normal good. In high-income conditions (high number of reinforcers per session), the consumption of an inferior good is relatively low. Currently, the specific variables that control the phenomenon in humans and in animals are unknown. Unpublished data collected by the authors during experiments with hens suggest that local variables such as bodyweight or amount of food in hens crops before sessions may be important for the effect rather than molar variables such as income, as is suggested in some published literature on monkeys and rats. The authors will present data from hens that show the effect of post-session feeding on the inferior-good effect. |
| |
|
| |