DTIC ADA272784: Behavioral Economics of Drug Self-Administration: An Introduction

9 Pages·0.58 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

AD-A272 784
IWlIllelil ll1f 1 litoi liii '" " " 0d1^ - .*tt f At-a.t .06 o0 000". I IS.. 0
11111111I1N I11 1 INi 11 1111111I1t1, 1 )flKe oClfIO¶ A M 'aW,,a bq.qGeO.t.l.e9 9C1C¢0 &.(cid:127) lA i..dqeI(cid:127) l Dm.'IC~, A.8ucio aD 1O09e ( 911l0o@9 5 14.04l' I$I$)).. e 1t (cid:127)a'aV 'l9fl1lfq lO" D#C00 .-391D i 0 QJo4 Of
RT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Behavioral Econcomics of Drug St(cid:127)-f ackninistrat ion: an
Introduct ion
6. AUTHOR(S)
Steven R. Hursh, Ph.D.
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AOORESS(ES) B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
Washington, DC 20307-5100
9. SPONSORING. MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING, MONITORING
U.S. Army Medical Research & Development Ccmmand AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland 21702-5012._ "-.
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for Public Release: Distribution Unlimited
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
Behavioral economics provides a set of concepts for the analysis of
factors that control the allocation of behavioral resources among available
reinforcers. Terms from micro-economics describe new phenomena previously
ignored within the traditional context of behavior analysis. This article
reviews these ccncepts as an introduction to the three papers that follow.
The primary dependent measure within the behavioral economic framework is the
level of consumption of available commodities as determined by the level and
distribution of instrumental responding. The demand curve provides a
quantitative metric for analyzing consumption under the constraint of unit
price. When the reinforcer is a drug, the demand curve can be a useful tool
for analyzing the level of motivation to consume the drug, its abuse
liability, and for evaluating interventions, such as alternative reinforcers
or medications, to reduce the motivation to consume the drug and instrumental
responding to obtain it. Behavioral economics also provides a framework for
formulating, testing, and refining drug abuse policy through a series of
empirical steps that maximize effectiveness and minimize undesirable social
consequences.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Behavioral economics; drug abuse; drug sel-administration;
abu-e liability; drug abuse policy 16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 119. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT Of THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 33 (1993) 165- 172 165
Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.
Behavioral economics of drug self-administration: Woo
an introduction
Steven R. Hursh*
Cn
Dii-ision of Neuropsychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington. DC 20307-5100 (LSA)
(Accepted May 27, 1993)
Behavioral economics provides a set of concepts for the analysis of factors that control the allocation of behavioral resources
among available reinforcers. Terms from micro-economics describe new phenomena previously ignored within the traditional
context of behavior analysis. This article reviews these concepts as an introduction to the three papers that follow. The primary
dependent measure within the behavioral economic framework is the level of consumption of available commodities as determin-
ed by the level and distribution of instrumental responding. The demand curve provides a quantitative metric for analyzing
consumption under the constraint of unit price. When the reinforcer is a drug, the demand curve can be a useful tool for analyz-
ing the level of motivation to consume the drug, its abuse liability, and for evaluating interventions, such as alternative rein-
forcers or medications, to reduce the motivation to consume the drug and instrumental responding to obtain it. Behavioral
economics also provides a framework for formulating' testing, and refining drug abuse policy through a series of enipiric'. steps
that maximize effectiveness and minimize undesirable social consequences.
Key words: behavioral economics; drug abuse; drug self-administration; abuse liability; drug abuse policy
Behavioral economics is a relatively new sub- economics, especially consumer demand theory
V discipline of general behavior analysis that and labor supply theory (Rachlin et al., 1976; see
concentrates on the factors which control the Watson and Holman, 1977, ,r a review of rele-
1
allocation of behavioral resources among avail- vant micro-economic theory; Lea, 1978; Allison
able reinforcers (Hursh, 1980, 1984; Hursh et al., 1979; Staddon, 1979; Allison, 1983); how-
and Bauman, 1987). As a practical matter, this ever, these terms often take on a special mean-
approach has borrowed terms from micro- ing when applied within behavioral analysis and
are not simple replacements for common behav-
to, Steven R. Hursh, Director, Division of ioral processes, such as reinforcement,
Corresiondence on discriminatin,.differeniationoandDhe like.
Neuropsychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, discrimination, differentiation, and the like. In-
Washington, DC 20307-5100, USA. deed, behavioral economics has generated in-
*The views of the author do not purport to reflect the posi- terest because it has directed our attention to
tion of the Department of the Army or the Department of new phenomena previously ignored and new
Defense (para 4-3, AR 360-5). The research described in this functional relations previously unnamed. In the
report was conducted in compliance with the Animal
Welfare Act and other Federal statutes and regulations articles that follow, behavioral economics is ap-
relating to animals and experiments involving animals and plied to the analysis of consumption of drug rein-
adheres to the principles stated in the Guide for the Care and forcers and the responding that produces that
Use of Laboratory Animals, NIH publication 86-23, 1985 consumption. In the following pages, I will pro-
edition. Reprints may be obtained by writing to Steven R. vide some basic groundwork that will serve as a
Hursh, Director, Division of Neuropsychiatry, Walter Reed
Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C. 20307- primer for understanding behavioral economic
5100. concepts as used in those articles.
9 3 1 1 5 0 8 9
0376-8716/93/$06.00 © 1993 Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.
Printed and Published in Ireland
166
Behavioral economic concepts food, that a closed economy be arranged for that
reinforcer az well. The behavioral difference be-
One of the most important contributions of be- tween open and closed economies is best
havioral economics has been to redirect our at- understood in terms of demand for the rein-
tention to total daily consumption as a primary forcer, discussed next.
dependent measure of behavior. In this context,
responding is regarded as a secondary depen- Demand curve analysis
dent variable that is important because it is in- The relationship between reinforcer cost and
strumental in controlling consumption. reinforcer consumption is termed a 'demand
Consideration of consumption as a primary fac- curve'. As the cost of a commodity increases,
tor required a major methodological shift. In consumption decreases, illustrated in Fig 1. The
most behavioral experiments the practice has rate of decrease in consumption (sensitivity to
been to control 'drive' by imposing some price) relative to the initial level of consumption,
deprivation schedule. Animals reinforced by is called 'elasticity of demand'. When consump-
food are held to 80% of free-feeding weight by tion declines slowly with proportionately large
limiting daily consumption and supplementing increases in price, we define that as 'inelastic de-
the amount of food earned in the test session mand'. For this to occur, total responding must
with just enough food to hold body weight within increase with increasing cost. For example,
a restricted range. This strategy was designed when the price of gasoline increased threefold
to hold 'drive' constant and eliminate a confoun- during the 1970s from 33 cents a gallon to over
ding factor. Inadvertently. the practice also one dollar a gallon, consumption decreased by
eliminated one of the major factors controlling only 10%. This was an example of inelastic de-
behavior in the natural environment, defense of mand and the result was that a larger share of
consumption. Under conditions of controlled household budgets were allocated to gasoline
drive, responding is not instrumental in deter- than were before.
mining daily consumption. This strategy of con- Not all demand curves are inelastic; consump-
trolling deprivation or consumption independent tion of saccharin sweetened water by a monkey
of behavioral changes is what I have termed an with an alternative source of water is elastic
'open economy' (Hursh, 1980, 1984). In more re- (Fig 2). In the figure, the price of each commodi-
cent experiments, control of deprivation has
been eliminated and subjects have been allowed
to control their own level of consumption, what
I have termed a 'closed economy'. The finding is
that radically different sorts of behavioral ad-
justments occur in these two types of
economies, especially when the reinforcer is a
necessary commodity like food or water (see
Hursh, 1978, 1984; Hursh and Natelson, 1981; U)
/
Lucas, 1981; Collier, 1983; Collier et al., 1986;
Hursh et al., 1988; Raslear et al., 1988; Hursh et (cid:127) ELASTICITY
al., 1989; Bauman, 1991). Fortunately, for those INCREASE
-
interested in drugs as reinforcers, most experi-
ments involving drug self-administration have
arranged a closed economy for the drug rein-
forcer; all drug administrations are response-
dependent (Johanson, 1978). It is important, Log Price
however, when comparing this behavior to be- Fig. 1. Demand curve showing the usual shape and an
havior reinforced by another reinforcer, such as increase in sensitivity to price termed an elasticity increase.
167
DEMAND RESPONSE OUTPUT
1000 10,0000
S100 <, 10,000
Wr A LUU
CL
w
CoC2 - 0
ILi 1000
z L0U
A FOOD
A SACCHARIN
II 1 0i i
10 100 1000 10 100 1000
FIXED RATIO FIXED RATIO
Fig. 2. Left panel: two demand curves by a rhesus monkey working for either food (squares) or saccharin sweetened water
(triangles). The functions show the total number of reinforcers earned each day under a series of fixed-ratio (FR) schedules
that ranged from FR 10-372. Right panel: daily output of responding that accompanied the levels of consumption shown in
the left panel.
ty (food or saccharin) was gradually increased increasing the elasticity of demand for PCP, in-
from ten responses per reinforcer to over 372 creasing the slope of the demand curve and
responses per reinforcer in a closed economy. decreasing the price at which responding reach-
Consumption declined slowly for food but de- ed its peak. In general, demand curves for drug
clined steeply for saccharin. As a corollary, total reinforcers conform to the same non-linear,
responding for food increased over a broad decreasing function typified by those in Fig 2
range while responding for saccharin generally and responding is an inverted U-shaped function
decreased over the same range. The distinction of price (see below for details; also see review by
between elastic and inelastic reinforcers defines Bickel et al., 1990). As discussed by Bickel et al.,
a continuum. Consumption of all reinforcers in their article, elasticity of demand may be a
becomes elastic if the price is elevated sufficient- useful basic metric for comparing different drug
ly; the difference between reinforcers can be reinforcers for abuse liability and for assessing
specified in terms of the point of transition be- the potency of interventions to reduce demand
tween inelastic and elastic demand (Pmax) and for drugs as reinforcers.
coincides with the peak of the response rate
functions shown in the right panel of Fig. 2. If Elasticity of demand
that transition occurs at relatively low prices, Elasticity of demand is not an inherent pro-
then demand for that reinforcer is generally perty of the reinforcer. For example, one of the
more elastic than demand for a reinforcer that primary differences between open and closed
sustains response increases over a broad range economies is elasticity of demand. While de-
of prices. In the article that follows by Marilyn mand for food is inelastic in a closed economy
Carroll, this approach was used to demonstrate (see Fig 2) where the subject controls its own in-
that the addition of a saccharin reinforcer con- take and no supplemental food is provided, de-
current with a PCP reinforcer had the effect of mand for food in an open economy can be quite
168
DEMAND FOR FOOD IN 12 HOUR SESSION RESPONDING IN 12 HOUR SESSION
V) 1000-100000-
I--
J _0J0 0
o_. o o..,,,. _
0W
0 LL. 0VU,
LA_ Z
000
z
o 1(cid:127) 00 1OO 00
Q-
0~0
: . BASELINE 0
z HR-FR I -o
0
10 100 1000 10 Pmax 100 1000
PRICE (FR SCHEDULE) PRICE (FR SCHEDULE)
Fig. 3. Left panel: two demand curves by a rhesus monkey for food during a 12 h work period, either with no other source
of food (0) or with a 1-h period of FR I food reinforcement immediately following the work period. (0) Consumption is shown
as a function of the FR schedule that ranged from FR 10- 372. Right panel: the total number of responses emitted per day
that produced the levels of food consumption during the work period shown in the left panel.
elastic. To illustrate this point, we provided a for the drug of abuse. Behavioral economics pro-
monkey access to low cost food requiring only vides an approach to evaluation of the behav-
one response per pellet (fixed ratio 1 or FR 1) for ioral efficacy of this sort of drug therapy. In a
20 min after a 12 h work period for food at manner parallel to that shown in Fig. 3 and
higher prices. The price of food in the work discussed in the previous paragraph, the subject
period was increased to assess demand (Fig 3). would be required to work for the target drug
The subject could work for food in the work during 'work periods'; varying amounts of the
period at the prevailing price or wait and obtain therapy drug would be given at other times,
food at a lower price later, analogous to obtain- either independently or as a consequence of an
ing low cost food in the home cage within an operant response, during a 'medication period'.
open economy. Compared to demand for food The efficacy of different therapies would be
when no low cost food was available, demand measured in terms of their effects on the
when an alternative source was available was elasticity of demand for the target drug
much more elastic and responding reached a measured during the work periods. As Bickel et
peak at a much lower price, indicated as Pmax. al. describe below, quantitative tools are avail-
Comparing Fig. 3 with Fig. 2, one can conclude able for specifying these changes in terms of the
that the addition of a substitute food source parameters of a demand equation (Hursh et al.,
functioned to convert food in the work period 1988; Hursh et al., 1989; Hursh, 1991).
into an elastic commodity, very similar to the
non-nutritive saccharin solution shown in Fig. 2 Measuring elasticity of demand
and discussed above. In general, elastic demand In order to use elasticity of demand as a basic
is typical for all reinforcers studied in an open yardstick for evaluating 'motivation' for drug
economy. reinforcers, we must precisely specify the condi-
In the context of drug abuse therapy, an alter- tions for measuring demand. This includes clear
native drug reinforcer such as methadone may definitions of the two primary variables, con-
be used as a medical intervention designed to sumption and price. I have proposed that con-
reduce demand or increase elasticity of demand sumption be measured in terms of total daily
169
intake, which, for drug reinforcers, becomes decrease response strength, but, generally, fre-
weight of drug per day adjusted for the weight quency is more powerful than amount in con-
of the subject (mg/kg/day). Many prior studies trolling choice between two alternatives
have measured consumption as 'injections per (Schneider, 1973; Todorov, 1973; see Davison
hour' or some other measure of reinforcement and McCarthy, 1988, for review).
rate. This measure obscures the assessment of
consumption because total drug intake is the Reinforcer interactions
product of 'number of reinforcers (infusions)'
and 'dose (mg/kg/infusion)'. The behavioral Behavioral economics specifies a range of in-
economic focus is on total consumption as a con- teractions that may occur among different rein-
trolling factor and requires an appropriate mea- forcers available to the subject. For
sure of consumption that considers dose as a convenience, we label these interactions as 'sub-
constituent factor. stitution', 'complementarity', and 'independ-
I have also proposed that price be specified as ence'. Substitution and complementarity are ili-
the ratio of response cost to reinforcer gain, lustrated in Fig 4. In each case, the term refers
termed 'unit price' (Hursh, 1984; Hursh et al., to the functional relationship between consump-
1988; Bickel et al., 1990; Bickel et al., 1991). The tion of one reinforcer (commodity) and the price
most important implication of unit price for the of another. If consumption of one reinforcer
understanding of drug reinforcement is that it (commodity B, Fig. 4) increases with increases
specifies that consumption is similarly controll- in price of another (commodity A), then com-
ed by increases in cost and decreases in dose. In modity B is said to be a substitute for commodity
other words, responses per reinforcer and dose A. For example, consumption of sugar pellets by
per reinforcer can both be thought of as cost fac- a rat will increase as we increase the price of rat
tors and have a monotonic relationship to con- chow; consumption of rat chow is driven down
sumption. A stricter interpretation of unit price by its price and consumption of sucrose in-
is implied by the analysis by Bickel et al., and
tested by Nader et al., below. In those articles,
the constituents of unit price, response cost and 1o000
dose, are assumed to have scaler equivalence as m
well. In other words, a doubling of response cost (cid:127) o °
is precisely equal to a halving of dose. Both (cid:127)-
Bickel et al., for the low dose case, and Nader et (cid:127) -,
al., in their experiment with cocaine indicate (cid:127) -,
0
that scalar equivalence may not be true in all o
cases. Nevertheless, both articles support the 100 "A
weaker notion of unit price, that increasing re- 0
sponse cost and decreasing dose both function P COMMODITY B
similarly to decrease consumption. As we ex- 2 a COMPLEMENT
tend research in this area we will define the do- (D * SUBSTITUTE
z
main of scalar equivalence of these two factors o
and, perhaps, define rescaling factors that are
required for specific drugs or situations. The 10o
problem that confronts us with unit price is not 10 100
so different from that encountered when at- UNIT PRICE - COMMODITY A
tempting to specify the combined effects of rein- Fig. 4. Diagram of two forms of reinforcer interactions.
forcer delay and reinforcer frequency on the complementarity (triangles) and substitution (squares), that
strength of responding. Decreasing reinforcer describe changes in consumption of commodity B that may
frequency and amount function similarly to result from changes in the price of commodity A.
170
creases to serve as a substitute. If consumption shown to reduce demand for food and this reduc-
of a reinforcer decreases with increases in the tion in demand was greatest when food rein-
price of another, then the first is said to comple- forcement was maintained within an 'open
ment the other. For example, consumption of economy' which would be expected to generate
water will decrease as the price of dry food chow greater elasticity of demand for food (see Fig.
is increased; with declining food consumption 3).
less water is consumed as a complement. In cer-
tain cases, the price of one reinforcer will have Behavioral economics and the problem of
no consistent effect on the consumption of drug abuse
another; in this case, the two are considered in-
dependent. The study described by Carroll il- Behavioral economic approaches to the prob-
lustrates how saccharin serves as a functional lem of drug abuse can make contributions in
substitute for PCP consumption and also serves several important domains. First, as pointed out
to increase elasticity of demand for PCP in com- by Bickel et al., the inalysis of demand curves
parison to demand for PCP alone. While not for drug reinforcers can serve as a convenient
totally eliminating PCP self-administration, this metric for comparing the 'motivation' to pro-
study provides a model for how to evaluate any cure and consume the drug. Quantitative
competing reinforcer as a 'therapy' for drug methods are available which could provide a
use. standardized system for evaluating new phar-
The evidence from studies with food indicates maceuticals for abuse liability (Hursh et al.,
that demand for a commodity is most sensitive 1988; Hursh et al., 1989; Hursh, 1991).
to modification by a substitute at relatively high Secondly, behavioral economic methods may
prices (Hursh et al., 1989). This is confirmed by be used to explore the interaction between
the results shown by Carroll with PCP and sac- drugs as reinforcers, especially between illicit
charin. The largest differences in consumption drugs and those proposed as therapies. I would
and responding occurred at unit prices in excess suggest that an acceptable therapy drug must
of 160. This suggests that demand-side interven- have three essential characteristics. First, the
tions need to be combined with supply-side therapy must be behaviorally efficacious in
restrictions that insure that the market price re- substantially reducing demand for the illicit
mains relatively high. These kinds of laboratory drug. Behavioral efficacy could be evaluated as
findings have direct implications for a balanced described above in terms of the effects of the
national drug abuse policy, therapy drug administered during medication
periods on the elasticity of demand for the illicit
Behavioral economics of acquisition and ex- drug during work periods. Second, the therapy
tinction of responding drug must be behaviorally safe. The behavioral
economic evaluation will indicate the dose and
The studies by Carroll break new ground in schedule of medication necessary to reduce drug
the area of behavioral economics. Most prior demand. Behavioral economic and performance
studies have concentrated on the modulation of assessment methods can then be used to evalu-
stable levels of previously established perfor- ate the behavioral effects of that therapy dose
mances. In this study, Carroll extends the analy- on cognitive and physical performance, as well
sis to economic factors that may moderate the as on general motivation for other activities. An
acquisition and extinction of performances, in acceptable therapy should have minimal effects
these studies maintained by drug reinforcement, on performance and general motivation. Third,
It is evident that the availability of a concurrent to insure compliance with the medication
substitute interferes with the rate of acquisition regimen, the therapy drug must be shown to be
of cocaine self-administration. In addition, non-aversive or even mildly reinforcing. While
withdrawal from PCP self-administration was many techniques are available for evaluating the
171
aversive properties of a stimulus, an economical An artificial environment can be established
method would evaluate the properties of the using tokens to compensate for work and to
medication within the context of efficacy test- serve as money to purchase alternative com-
ing. As described above, the medication would modities including the illicit drug. Any policy
be given during designated 'medication periods'; can then be modeled in terms of the simulated
rather than dispensing the medication wage rates and consumption prices. The pro-
automatically, the drug could be offered to the bable outcomes of the policy can be tested in
subject according to a response-dependent sche- terms of its effects on illicit drug consumption,
dule. If the beneficial properties of the drug sup- work to obtain the illicit drug, sensitivity to
port self-administration of the medication therapy interventions, and sensitivity to supply-
during medication periods, then we can be rea- side restrictions.
sonably assured that the medication is not aver- The experimental results can then be com-
sive and that compliance with a clinical bined with knowledge about the actual demand
medication schedule would occur. Therefore, by elasticities of the illicit market place to more
applying behavioral techniques, a program of precisely define the policy parameters. This
testing would insure that three evaluation cri- refined policy proposal can then be tested in
teria are satisfied and that the proposed medica- model projects to insure that unanticipated
in"n would be effective, safe, and practical. dynamics of the market do not overwhelm the
Fiially, the behavioral economic model offers expected effects of the policy. Based on further
a framevork for formulating a systematic, em- refinements from model projects, a rational na-
pirically bmed national policy for the control of tional policy can be formulated that has minimal
drug abuse. This approach has been explained in risk, maximal chances of success, and long-term
Hursh (1991) and is summarized in Fig 5. Labo- benefit to society.
ratory data are needed on any proposed medica-
tion or policy (cid:127)strategy. It is possible with References
behavioral ec.onomic methods to model with
human su)ects or non-human primates, the es- Allison, J., Miller, M. and Wozny, M. (1979) Conservation in
sential6concmic features of the proposed policy, behavior J. Exp. Psychol: General, 108, 4-34.
Allison, J. (1983) Behavioral Economics. Praeger, New
York.
Bauman, R.A. (1991) The experimental analysis of the cost
of food in a closed economy. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 56,
Policy Implementation and Evaluation 33-50.
Bickel, W.K., DeGrandpre, R.J., Higgins, S.T. and Hughes,
J.R. (1990) Behavioral economics of drug self-
Feedback Public Policy Formulation administration. 1. Functional equivalence of response re-
quirement and drug dose. Life Sci. 47, 1501 - 1510.
Bickel, W.K., DeGrandpre, R.J., Higgins, S.T. and Hughes,
Experimental Model Projects J.R. (1991) Behavioral economics of drug self-
administration. I1. A unit-price analysis of cigarette
smoking. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 55, 145-154.
Collier, G.H. (1983) Life in a closed economy: the ecology of
Econometric Analysis learning and motivation. In: Advances in analysis of be-
of Market Behavior havior: vol. 3. Biological factors in learning, (Zeiler, M.D.
and Harzem, P. eds.), pp. 223-274. Wiley, Chichcster,
Laboratory Laboratory Clinical England.
Non-Human Human Research Collier, G.H., Johnson, D.F., Hill, W.L. and Kaufman, L.W.
(1986) The economics of the law of effect. J. Exp. Anal.
Behav. 46, 113- 136.
Fig. 5. Diagram of the systematic application of behavioral Davison, M. and McCarthy, D. (1988) The matching law: a
economic methods for the formulation and refinement of research review. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,
drug abuse policy. Publishers, New Jersey.
172
Hursh, S.R. (1978) The economics of daily consumption con- Lea, S.E.G. (1978) The psychology and economics of de-
trolling food- and water-reinforced responding. J. Exp. mand. Psychol. Bull. 85. 441 - 466.
Anal. Behav. 29, 475-491. Lea, S.E.G. and Roper, T.J. (1977) Demand for food on
Hursh, S.R. (1980) Economic concepts for the analysis of be- fixed-ratio schedules as a function of the quality of concur-
havior. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 34, 219-238. rently available reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 27.
Hursh, S.R. (1964) Behavioral economics. J. Exp. Anal. 371-380.
Behav. 42, 435- 452. Lucas, G.A. (1981) Some effects of reinforcer availability on
Hursh, S.R. and Bauman, R.A. (1987) The behavioral analy- the pigeon's res, ,ding in 24-h sessions. Anim. Learn.
sis of demand. In: Advances in behavioral economics, Behav. 9. 411- 424.
(Green, L. and Kagel, J.H.. eds.), Vol 1, pp. 117- 165. Rachlin, H., Green, L., Kagel, J.H. and Battalio, R.('. (1976)
Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, N.J. Economic demand theory and psychological studies of
Hursh, S.R. and Natelson, B.H. (1981) Electrical brain stim- choice. In: The psychology of learning and motivation.
ulation and food reinforcement dissociated by demand (Bower, G., ed.), Vol. 10, pp. 129- 154. Academic Press,
elasticity. Physiol. Behav. 26, 509-515. New York.
Hursh, S.R., Raslear, T.G., Bauman, R. and Black. H. (1989) Raslear, T.G., Bauman, R.A., Hursh, S.R., Shurtleff. D. and
The quantitative analysis of economic behavior with labo- Simmons, L. (1988) Rapid demand curves for behavioral
ratory animals. In: Understanding economic behaviour, economics. Anim. Learn. Behav. 16, 330-339.
(Theory and Decision Library, Series A, vol. I), (Grunert, Schneider, J.W. (1973) Reinforcer effectiveness as a func-
K.G. and Olander, F., eds.), pp. 393-407. Kluwer tion of reinforcer rate and magnitude. J. Exp. Anal.
Academic Press, Boston. Behav. 20, 461-471.
Hursh, S.R., Raslear, T.G., Shurtleff, D., Bauman, R. and Staddon, J.E.R. (1979) Operant behavior as adaptation to
Simmons, L. (1988) A cost-benefit analysis of demand for constraint. J. Exp. Psychol.: General, 108, 48-67.
food. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 50, 419-440. Todorov, J.C. (1973) Interaction of frequenc' and
Johanson, C.E. (1978) Drugs as reinforcers. In: Contempor- magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent perfor'nances.
ary Research in Behavioral Pharmacology, (Blackman, J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 19, 451 -458.
D.E. and Sanger, D.J., eds.), pp. 325- 390. Plenum Press, Watson, D.S. and Holman, M.A. (1977) Price theory and its
New York. uses (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Accesion For
NTIS CRA&I
DTIC TAB L
Unannounced r"
Justification . . . . .
By ...................................
Distribution I
Awv il.JbCK'/. , C»(cid:127).u
yDist