Reply to Bickel

Rudolf N Cardinal,Trevor W Robbins,Barry J Everitt

2003-01-01

Abstract:Wethank Bickel for his kind comments onour article. We agree with him that identifying and characterizing the multiple processes contributing to choice is of fundamental importance to the understanding of disorders of choice such as impulsivity and drug addiction. Bickel makes the important point that one must also consider the interaction between reinforcers, as illustrated by the economic concept of cross-price elasticity, when considering choice involving multiple reinforcers, as is typical of real-world addiction. Bickel comments on the theoretical implications of our finding that signals acting during a delay to reinforcement (putatively acting as conditioned reinforcers) interact with and alter the effects of psychostimulant drug administration. We commented in our paper that this was a piece of evidence supporting the view that multiple processes contribute to the macroscopic phenomenon of delay discounting—the manner in which preference for a reward declines as it is progressively delayed. Bickel's point is that the presence of a putative conditioned reinforcer in our study (Cardinaletal. 2000) altered the effects of a psychostimulant drug on choice involving delayed reinforcement, but did not" fundamentally alter (the) functional relationship" between delay and choice.It is clear that a subject's tendency to choose a particular delayed reinforcer depends not only upon the delay, but also upon the presence or absence of a signal during that delay (and that, if administered, psychostimulants also affect choice, and can interact with the delay and with any signal present). The delay and the signal both contribute to observable behaviour. Thus, we feel it …