Behavioral Economics: A New Perspective on Choice and Drug Self-administration, Study notes of Economics

Download Behavioral Economics: A New Perspective on Choice and Drug Self-administration and more Study notes Economics in PDF only on Docsity! JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS WARREN K. BICKEL, LEONARD GREEN, AND RUDY E. VUCHINICH UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, AND AUBURN UNIVERSITY This special issue of the Journal of the Exper- imental Analysis of Behavior is devoted to be- havioral economics-a relatively new yet ex- panding area of research and theory in the experimental analysis of behavior. Economics was first addressed in this journal (as indicat- ed by the index) in an experimental report by Green and Rachlin in 1975. Since that re- port, behavioral economic articles have ap- peared with increasing frequency (see Figure 1), with the greatest number of articles pub- lished in the 3-year period from 1991 to 1993 (the last years covered by the index). Many who read this journal may wonder what the appeal is of a discipline that is often cited for its inability to predict national trends accurately and that is frequently the target of jokes. (e.g., "If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion. And if they did, it probably would be wrong.") Indeed, many might view this attraction to economics as a movement in a direction opposite to that of the current trends of embracing biological approaches, be they molecular approaches (the traditional provenance of the neuro- sciences) or evolutionary approaches (cur- rently receiving increasing attention in the behavior-analytic field). Economics and bi- ology, however, may not be as far apart as one might initially assume. Darwin, after all, was strongly influenced by the two Scottish economists, Thomas Malthus and Adam Smith, and the formal similarity between Smith's laissez-faire economy and Darwin's theory of natural selection has been noted by Gould (1993). The appeal of economics for behavior anal- ysis results not from its reputation (or lack thereof), nor from its relationship to biology. Rather, pragmatic considerations motivate its adoption: Economics provides a rich area of knowledge and conceptual elegance that of- fers new independent variables, methods of analysis, and dependent measures. New in- dependent variables such as income and open and closed economies suggest a new view of choice and schedule performance; new methods of analysis such as unit price permit a parsimonious integration of multi- ple interacting variables and, importantly, specify mathematically how those variables in- teract; new measures such as elasticity (pro- portional change in consumption as a func- tion of increasing price) and substitutability measure different features of reinforcers, ones that might be useful in comparing re- inforcing events. These and other economic concepts and measurers also motivate alter- native theoretical conceptualizations of how reinforcers influence behavior and compel the consideration of new applications and techniques for behavior change. Having said this, however, we acknowledge that considerably more work will be necessary to identify the extent to which economics might further the behavior-analytic enter- prise. Moreover, we recognize that the eco- nomic assertions that choices are rational and that they optimize utility are troubling to many in the field (as these assertions are to many in other fields as well). Concerns for rationality and utility maximization, however, are not part and parcel of every economic approach. One may embrace the use of eco- nomic concepts without also clinging to util- ity maximization. Economics is not a unitary enterprise. Its diversity, as is that of behavior analysis, can be gleaned from this special is- sue. The articles that comprise this special issue congregate into three loose and overlapping themes: choice, demand-curve analysis, and the comparative analysis of behavioral eco- nomics. Choice No one area better represents the theoret- ical and empirical vitality of contemporary behavior analysis than does choice. Since Herrnstein's formulation of the matching law (1961, 1970), the spate of experimental re- ports and theoretical analyses has not abated. 257 1995, 64, 257-262 NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER) WARREN K BICKEL et al. Behavioral Economic Articles lo T 44t 0 *'- U-) ON 0 '. 0' (N qr to 0 0 C4J'.0 'o %D 'o r~- N- r 0'% 0' 0'% 0' 0'% 0' 0'% - a /n\ ;~~-0 *._./ ._._._. -=/ I a I I a I I . -l m-I I I a . c3 0 0N IT to 0 0 c(N CO co OD X, 0 ON 0 IO ' O' O' a' a' a' Oa Ca' Year Fig. 1. The number of articles in JEAB per year that have used economic descriptors. Data collected from JEAB indexes. It was the matching law that explicitly ac- knowledged the role of context in describing choice behavior. No longer could the effects of a reinforcer on a target response be stud- ied in isolation; rather, the overall context within which the reinforcer occurs needs to be taken into account. Choice behavior is in- fluenced by constraints (constraints of time, constraints created by schedules of reinforce- ment, etc.). With the realization of con- straints and context came the initial foray into economics. After all, economics is the study of the allocation of behavior within a system of constraint. One could propose, therefore, that the study of economic factors such as price, income, and substitutability needed to be incorporated into the psycho- logical models of choice. For example, mi- croeconomic models, developed specifically to account for consumers' choices among dif- ferent commodities as price and income vary, may inform psychological research in which schedule requirements are varied. So, too, if the distribution of behavior across response alternatives is related to the distribution of the reinforcers obtained from those alterna- tives, qualitative aspects of the reinforcers (i.e., their substitutability) may influence choice behavior just as quantitative aspects such as rate, magnitude, and delay do. Thus, economics may be a potentially powerful ally in our quest for understanding the processes underlying choice. As the articles in this spe- cial issue demonstrate, behavioral economics adds a dimension to our understanding of choice that could not have been possible pri- or to the interactive relation between eco- nomics and the experimental analysis of be- havior. Joel Myerson and Leonard Green report data from human subjects choosing between hypothetical amounts of money at various de- lays in order to study the formal relation be- tween delay of reward and present value. Like earlier experiments that have used this prep- aration (e.g., Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991), Myerson and Green found that the val- ue of delayed rewards is discounted accord- ing to a hyperbolic-like function rather than an exponential decay function. This consis- tent finding in the behavioral economic lit- erature is important, given that microeco- nomic theory typically has relied on exponential functions. (Some general impli- cations of nonexponential discounting are pursued in the paper by Howard Rachlin.) The Myerson and Green paper also makes several other important contributions to the 258 EDITORIAL ferences pose a problem in making comparisons. Hursh and Winger suggest that this difficulty may be overcome by normaliz- ing their potency. The approach appears to be promising from the data presented in their paper and may add significantly to the ability of basic laboratory research to address issues of societal relevance. Relation of Behavioral Economics to Other Approaches Central to evaluating behavioral economics and its potential contributions to the experi- mental and applied analysis of behavior is un- derstanding points of commonalities with and points of departures from other behav- ioral perspectives. By discerning commonali- ties, one identifies those elements of the dif- ferent approaches that are noncontroversial and the range of phenomena in which the data are relatively unambiguous. By discern- ing points of departure, one identifies those aspects that are controversial. These areas of controversy may, in turn, occasion new ex- periments that may clarify the disagreements and produce theoretical insights that advance our understanding and suggest new applica- tions. The paper by Tustin, described earlier, stands as an exemplar of this. Also, this spe- cial issue contains three other papers that di- rectly explore the relation of behavioral eco- nomics to other approaches. John Nevin provides a welcome analysis and comparison of demand elasticity and be- havioral momentum. Nevin points out the fundamentally different conceptions of the reinforcement process entailed by the two ap- proaches. Specifically, "The behavioral mo- mentum approach affirms the traditional Skinnerian position that consequences select and strengthen the operant class on which they are contingent." The behavioral eco- nomic approach, on the other hand, stresses that under a contingency constraint, instru- mental and contingent behavior are reallo- cated in such a way as to maximize overall utility or minimize deviations from a set point. In spite of such "radically different conceptions of behavior and its conse- quences," the substantial overlap between be- havioral economic and behavioral momen- tum approaches is striking. He demonstrates how "both can accommodate a variety of data collected within the framework of either ap- proach." In addition, he points out areas in which one approach suggests limitations on the other and proposes experimental tests to evaluate competing explanations. As noted, the maximization of utility and rationality aspects of microeconomic theory and their incorporation into behavioral eco- nomics have troubled many behavioral sci- entists (e.g., Herrnstein, 1990). A major and obvious source of this concern is that the lit- erature is replete with apparent instances of irrational and submaximal behavior. Howard Rachlin points out that the ubiquity of such findings has led behavioral economics to be viewed as the study of anomalies, with an anomalous finding being defined by virtue of its deviation from rationality. But this defini- tion of anomalies depends on the definition of rationality, and Rachlin argues for a redef- inition of rationality so that the so-called anomalies disappear. Rachlin's paper chal- lenges some fundamental concepts of both economics and behavior analysis, but it re- mains faithful to Skinner's dictum that "the subject is always right" and it places behav- ioral economics in a better position to iden- tify functional relations between behavior and the environment. The final paper of the special issue is by Peter Killeen. In comparing economics, eco- logics, and mechanics, Killeen notes that as a science of final causes, economics is con- cerned with the goals around which behavior is organized. But as important as the under- standing and identification of the final causes of behavior are, Killeen forcefully argues that a mechanics-a "science of formal causes" is equally if not more important. By a me- chanics of behavior Killeen does not mean to suggest outdated models entailing gears and pulleys, but rather one that focuses on math- ematical linkages between cause and effect. Indeed, his mechanics impressively accounts for a number of phenomena, many of which are otherwise difficult to understand or ex- plain. The mathematical models are extend- ed to deal with deprivation, satiation, and arousal. The models account for within-ses- sion changes in responding and results from open and closed economies. The mathemat- ical formalization of changes in deprivation (depletion and repletion rates) is what distin- guishes the mechanics of behavior as an ex- planation from an economic account in 262 WARREN K BICKEL et al. which changes in elasticity are posited. Kil- leen serves up an impressive theoretical con- tribution, one that provides an alternative yet complementary model of behavior. Conclusion This special issue was prepared because we believe that behavior analysis benefits from the inclusion of behavioral economics. The overarching goal is to offer the reader a se- lection of research and theory motivated by a behavioral economic framework. Within that larger goal, we hoped that (a) some of the articles would present empirical studies in which behavioral economics was at the core of the research in order to demonstrate its appeal and (dare we say) its utility for the experimental analysis of behavior; (b) theo- retical papers predicated on behavioral eco- nomics would demonstrate its value for the further development of theory; and (c) crit- ical discussion would be offered in order to extend the dialogue and increase interaction with researchers who may be less familiar with behavioral economics. We are pleased that from our perspective the papers in this spe- cial issue fulfill these goals. Of course, it is up to the reader to evaluate for him or herself how well and to what extent the goals have been met. Finally, we return to an issue raised earlier in this essay. Although we may talk about "be- havioral economics" as if there were this sin- gular enterprise, we remind the reader that those who conduct research under the rubric of behavioral economics are not all cut from the same cloth. For some, elasticity of de- mand plays a major organizing role; for oth- ers, substitutability is the concept most valu- able in understanding and describing choice. For some, economic concepts provide a rich conceptual framework; for others, the theory is of little relevance-it is the methods of analysis that are useful. For some, maximiza- tion of utility is assumed; for others, no such assumption is made. The success of behavior- al economics will depend on its ability to de- scribe and predict behavior under changing constraints, to offer new interpretations, and to suggest new insights and applications. Al- though we believe that behavioral economics has already achieved some measure of suc- cess, our hope is that this special issue will spur continued development. REFERENCES Bickel, W. K., DeGrandpre, R.J., & Higgins, S. T. (1993). Behavioral economics: A novel experimental ap- proach to the study of drug dependence. Drug and AlcoholDependence, 33, 173-192. Bickel, W. K, DeGrandpre, R. J., Higgins, S. T., & Hughes,J. R. (1990). Behavioral economics. I. Func- tional equivalence of response requirement and drug dose. Life Sciences, 47, 1501-1510. DeGrandpre, R. J., Bickel, W. K, Hughes, J. R., & Hig- gins, S. T. (1992). Behavioral economics of drug self- administration: III. A reanalysis of the nicotine regu- lation hypothesis. Psychopharmacology, 108, 1-10. Gould, S. J. (1993). Eight little piggies. New York: W. W. Norton. Green, L., & Kagel,J. H. (in press). Advances in behavioral economics: Vol. 3. Substance use and abuse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Green, L., & Rachlin, H. (1975). Economic and biolog- ical influences on a pigeon's keypeck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23, 55-62. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforce- ment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experinmental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266. Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Rational choice theory: Nec- essary but not sufficient. American Psychologist, 45, 356- 367. Hoffmeister, F. (1979). Progressive-ratio performance in the rhesus monkey maintained by opiate infusions. Psychopharmacology, 62, 181-186. Hursh, S. R. (1984). Behavioral economics. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4Z 435-452. Hursh, S. R. (1993). Behavioral economics of drug self- administration: An introduction. Drug and Alcohol De- pendence, 33, 165-172. Rachlin, H., Green, L., & Tormey, B. (1988). Is there a decisive test between matching and maximizing? Jour- nal of the Expeimental Analysis ofBehavior, 50, 113-123. Rachlin, H., Raineri, A., & Cross, D. (1991). Subjective probability and delay. Journal of the Experimental Anal- ysis of Behavior, 55, 233-244. Vuchinich, R. E., & Tucker, J. A. (1988). Contributions from behavioral theories of choice to an analysis of alcohol abuse. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 97, 181- 195.