Association for Behavior Analysis International

Impulsive behavior is the preference of a smaller sooner (SS) reinforcer over a larger later (LL) reinforcer; the opposite is self-control behavior. Impulsive choice characterizes many behaviors posing significant risks to public health (e.g., substance abuse and pathological gambling). Despite major advances in our field towards understanding factors that affect impulsive preference (e.g., fading, framing, and priming procedures to reduce delay discounting), there is still a need to continue identifying relevant variables and strengthening procedures that reduce impulsive choice. The first presentation will examine commitment (behavior emitted at a time prior to the choice point that eliminates or reduces the probability of impulsive behavior), its two types (strict and soft), and will explore a framework for the development and evaluation of effective soft-commitment procedures. The second presentation will analyze the findings of an experiment that tested the effects of noncontingent visual aversive stimulation on human self-control. It will also compare these findings with previous research that has shown that other forms of aversive stimulation (intense noise and cold water) increase impulsive behavior. The last presentation will build on the second, discussing the findings of a study that explored the effects of mild noncontingent aversive stimulation (electric shocks) on self-control and preference reversal of Wistar rats.

It is ideal that participants in the audience have a basic understanding of the overall behavior analytic approach to choice, including the notion of self-control behavior and delay discounting.

Green and Estle’s (2003) procedure was systematically replicated to explore the effect of non-contingent shocks on self-control and preference reversal of Wistar rats. Subjects chose between a smaller-sooner (SS) and a larger-later (LL) reinforcer. Eight of the rats also received concurrently 0.5-s shocks of 0.25mA in a 60-s random time schedule throughout all phases of the experiment. During baseline, rats chose between SS = 2 pellets after a 0.5-s delay and LL = 4 pellets after a 6-s delay. Most rats slightly preferred LL at the start of this phase. Except three non-shocked subjects, rats increased their LL preference across sessions, with shocked rats showing an overall higher increase. In phase 2, delays were added systematically only in the LL option until each animal showed a steady SS preference (number of pellets in SS and LL was not changed). The amount of time added until rats showed SS preference varied across subjects (6 to 36 s). Shocked rats overall showed more responding on LL throughout the different increments in delays. In phase 3, systematic increases in SS and LL of 5-s, 15-s, and 25-s were implemented to reverse the rats’ preference from the SS option to the LL option. Subjects exposed to shocks showed greater preference for the LL option across all the delays. Our findings overall are not aligned with the previously-reported increase of impulsive behavior under contingent and noncontingent aversive stimulation. For example, humans exposed to aversive noise and immersion of hands in cold water increased their responses in SS (Flora et al., 1993, 2003). Also, noncontingent aversive tone disrupted fixed-interval responding of rats, increasing unnecessary responding (Reed, 2011). The distribution of non-contingent shocks pre and post reinforcement on each option (SS and LL) was explored as a potential explanation (e.g., higher rate of shocks delivered after reinforcement in SS).