IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v19y2008i1p154-162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The discounting-by-interruptions hypothesis: model and experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel E. Henly
  • Allison Ostdiek
  • Erika Blackwell
  • Sarah Knutie
  • Aimee S. Dunlap
  • David W. Stephens

Abstract

Experimental animals often prefer small but immediate rewards even when larger-delayed rewards provide a higher rate of intake. This impulsivity has important implications for models of foraging and cooperation. Behavioral ecologists have hypothesized that animals discount delayed rewards because delay imposes a collection risk. According to this long-standing hypothesis, delay reduces value because an interruption that occurs while an animal is waiting may prevent it from collecting the delayed reward. Although there have been many experimental demonstrations of animal preferences for immediacy, none have included any interruptions. This paper develops a simple model of discounting by interruptions and then tests this model experimentally. The model considers the effects of interruption rate and duration on choice behavior. The experiment tests the effects of interruptions on the choice behavior of captive blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) using a factorial design that manipulates the rate and duration of interruptions. The results do not support the discounting-by-interruptions hypothesis. This represents one of several lines of evidence suggesting that investigators should seek alternative explanations of the animal impulsivity. Copyright 2008, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel E. Henly & Allison Ostdiek & Erika Blackwell & Sarah Knutie & Aimee S. Dunlap & David W. Stephens, 2008. "The discounting-by-interruptions hypothesis: model and experiment," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19(1), pages 154-162.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:1:p:154-162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arm110
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:19:y:2008:i:1:p:154-162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.