Driven by Consequences: The Multiscale Molar View of Choice

In the Multiscale Molar View of behavior, all behavior is seen as choice and is measured as time allocation. Because time is limited, activities compete for the limited time available. When Phylogenetically Important Events (PIEs) that ultimately affect fitness and ontogenetic proxies of these PIEs occur as consequences of an activity, they drive time spent in that activity. Time allocation is studied in the laboratory with concurrent payoff schedules, in which two or more schedules operate simultaneously. The generalized matching law describes choice in relation to relative consequences. It has been verified for food and other PIEs and for pairs of variable‐interval schedules and variable‐interval schedules paired with variable‐ratio schedules. Because behavior produces consequences in the environment and those consequences in turn affect behavior, the environmental feedback functions and behavioral functional relations may be characterized as a feedback system. When different activities produce different consequences, choice depends also on the substitutability of the consequences. When consequences are perfectly substitutable, exclusive preference may occur, but when they are imperfectly substitutable, partial preferences may occur. Choice may become a dilemma pitting impulsivity against self‐control when consequences are not stationary with respect to time. Evaluated in short timeframes, an activity may be strongly induced by its consequences, but evaluated in long timeframes, its consequences may be extremely negative; such an activity (e.g., using cocaine or lying) is a bad habit. A good habit (e.g., tooth brushing or helping others) presents the opposite conflict: bad consequences in short timeframes and positive consequences in long timeframes. Research on choice between good and bad habits may reveal factors that increase time spent in good habits relative to time spent in bad habits. The Multiscale Molar View helps to clarify various complexities that underlie choice viewed as time allocation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.