Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Ratio versus difference comparators in choice

J Gibbon1, S Fairhurst

  • 1New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York 10032.

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
|November 1, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Patient-reported outcomes and qualitative interviews in patients with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: results from the phase III EMBER-3 trial.

ESMO open·2026
Same author

Black Hole Spectroscopy and Tests of General Relativity with GW250114.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

GW250114: Testing Hawking's Area Law and the Kerr Nature of Black Holes.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Search for Subsolar-Mass Binaries in the First Half of Advanced LIGO's and Advanced Virgo's Third Observing Run.

Physical review letters·2022
Same author

Constraints on Cosmic Strings Using Data from the Third Advanced LIGO-Virgo Observing Run.

Physical review letters·2021
Same author

Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA.

Living reviews in relativity·2020
Same journal

The Genoeconomics of Impulsive Intertemporal Choice: A Critical Review.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Shaping the extinction burst: Increasing its probability and preventing its emergence across topographies.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Evaluating the combined effects of effort and probability on monetary discounting.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

An improved translational approach to studying persistence-strengthening effects of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Interactions between the effects of food and water motivating operations on concurrent food- and water-reinforced responding in mice.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
Same journal

Odor-visual and visual-visual matching to sample with dogs.

Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior·2026
See all related articles

This study found that choices between food rewards are best explained by a ratio-based decision rule, not a difference-based one. This has implications for understanding decision-making under varying reinforcement schedules.

Area of Science:

  • Behavioral science
  • Learning theory
  • Decision-making research

Background:

  • Learning literature proposes decision rules for performance based on ratios and differences.
  • Existing theories do not fully explain choice behavior under complex reinforcement schedules.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze choice rules based on delays, immediacies, or rates of food, combined with ratio or difference comparators.
  • To investigate how motivational differentials affect choice behavior.
  • To determine which decision rule best explains observed preferences.

Main Methods:

  • An experiment was conducted using the time-left procedure.
  • Motivational differentials were induced by unequal reinforcement durations.
  • Choice preferences were analyzed under factorial combinations of reinforcement properties.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Preference results supported a ratio-comparator decision rule.
  • Decision rules based on differences did not align with the observed data.
  • Differential reinforcement amounts were functionally equivalent to changes in food delays.
  • Biased reinforcement increased overall food rate but altered preference variance, consistent with Weber's law.

Conclusions:

  • Choice behavior in this context is best modeled by a ratio-based decision rule.
  • Findings align with multiplicative, scalar variance sources, challenging models based on proportional rate changes.
  • Reinforcement amount and duration significantly influence decision-making processes.