Consumption and response output as a function of unit price: manipulation of cost and benefit components

Abstract

We conducted preference assessments with 4 typically developing children to identify potential reinforcers and assessed the reinforcing efficacy of those stimuli. Next, we tested two predictions of economic theory: that overall consumption (reinforcers obtained) would decrease as the unit price (response requirement per reinforcer) increased and that the cost and benefit components that defined unit price would not influence overall consumption considerably when unit price values were equal. We tested these predictions by arranging unit price such that the denominator was one (e.g., two responses produced one reinforcer) or two (e.g., four responses produced two reinforcers). Results showed that consumption decreased as unit price increased and that unit price values with different components produced similar consumption.

Keywords: behavioral economics; costs and benefits; preference assessment; reinforcer demand; unit price.

Figure 1

Preference assessment results for all participants. Note that the scale of the y axis is set to a maximum of 40.

Figure 2

Results of the reinforcer assessment for all participants. See text for a description of the contingencies in place during baseline and FR 1.

Figure 3

Results of the demand analysis for all participants. Each participant's data occupies one row. Each data point represents mean number of reinforcers earned (left column) or mean number of tasks completed (right column), across the last four sessions of the condition, for all participants (session-by-session data are available from the second author). Data are expressed on double logarithmic axes. Open circles depict data from Series 1, and filled triangles depict data from Series 2. Bars represent standard deviations (SD); data points with SD values equal to zero do not have bars, and those with SD values less than 1 have bars that may not be visible. Also note that all data points with bars are plotted with both upper and lower bars, although this may not be visible due to the nature of logarithmic axes. Series 1 and Series 2 were differentiated only in terms of the FR requirement and the number of reinforcers delivered after completion of the nominal FR requirement (one in Series 1, two in Series 2). The exception was for Elijah at Unit Price 45 of Series 2, in which completion of 45 responses resulted in one reinforcer.

Figure 4

Results of the demand analysis fitted with the Hursh et al. (1988) equation for Elijah, Anna, Keelan, and Elizabeth. The last four sessions conducted for each unit price are depicted. Demand functions (reinforcers obtained as a function of unit price) appear in the left column, and work functions appear in the right column (tasks completed as a function of unit price). Data are expressed on double logarithmic axes. Open circles depict data from Series 1, and filled triangles depict data from Series 2. Nonlinear regression curves are depicted by dotted lines for Series 1 data and by solid lines for Series 2 data. Series 1 and 2 were differentiated only in terms of the FR requirement and the number of reinforcers delivered after completion of the nominal FR requirement (one in Series 1, two in Series 2). The exception was for Elijah at Unit Price 45 of Series 2, in which completion of 45 responses resulted in one reinforcer.