Heroin choice depends on income level and economy type.

RATIONALE: In a previous study, investigating choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative in animals and reductions in income (i.e., choices/day) caused the percentage of income spent on heroin to progressively decrease. In contrast, another study found that humans with opioid use disorder spent the majority of their income on heroin even though they had little income. Comparison of these two studies suggests that the seemingly conflicting results could be explained by differences in the underlying economy types of the choice alternatives. OBJECTIVE: The present experiment tested the hypothesis that the effect of income changes on choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative depends on economy type. METHODS: Rats chose between heroin and saccharin under three income levels. For the Closed group, the choice session was the only opportunity to obtain these reinforcers. For the Heroin Open group and the Saccharin Open group, choice sessions were followed by 3-h periods of unlimited access to heroin or saccharin, respectively. RESULTS: As income decreased, the Closed and Heroin Open groups, but not the Saccharin Open group, spent an increasingly greater percentage of income on saccharin than on heroin. The Saccharin Open group, compared to the other groups, spent a greater percentage of income on heroin as income decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm that the effects of income and economy type can interact and this may explain the apparently discrepant results of earlier studies. More generally, findings suggest that situations where heroin choice has little consequence for consumption of non-drug alternatives may promote heroin use.

The effect of economy type on heroin and saccharin essential value.

According to behavioral economics, reinforcer value should be lower in an open economy than in a closed economy. An animal model was used to determine how economy type affected the value of heroin and saccharin. In a first phase, separate groups of rats worked for heroin or saccharin. The price of these reinforcers increased over sessions. For rats in the open heroin or open saccharin economies, the work period of each session was followed by a postwork period where a cheaper source of heroin or saccharin was available for three hours. For rats in the closed economies, the work period was their only opportunity to obtain the reinforcer. Rats in the open saccharin economy worked less hard to defend consumption of saccharin as price increased than rats in the closed saccharin economy. That is, opening the saccharin economy reduced its essential value. In contrast, economy type had no effect on heroin's essential value. In a second phase, rats were allowed to choose between heroin and saccharin. The majority of rats strongly preferred saccharin over heroin regardless of economy type. The finding that economy type changed the essential value of saccharin, but not heroin, adds to previous findings suggesting that the value of drug reinforcers is unaffected by future drug availability. The difference in effect of economy type on drug versus nondrug reinforcers could be relevant to addiction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Like chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), pigeons (Columba livia domestica) match and Nash equilibrate where humans (Homo sapiens) do not.

Martin, Bhui, Bossaerts, Matsuzawa, and Camerer (2014) found that chimpanzee pairs competing in matching-pennies games achieved the Nash equilibrium whereas human pairs did not. They hypothesized this outcome may be due to (a) chimpanzee ecology producing evolutionary changes that give them a cognitive advantage over humans in these games, and (b) humans being disadvantaged because the cognition necessary for optimal game play was traded off in evolution to support language. We provide data relevant to their hypotheses by exposing pairs of pigeons to the same games. Pigeons also achieved the Nash equilibrium, but did so while also conforming with the matching law prediction on concurrent schedules where choice ratios covary with reinforcer ratios. The cumulative effects model, which produces matching on concurrent schedules, also achieved the Nash equilibrium when it was simulated on matching-pennies games. The empirical and simulated compatibility between matching law and Nash equilibrium predictions can be explained in two ways. Choice to concurrent schedules, where matching obtains, and choice in game play, where the Nash equilibrium is achieved, may reflect the operation of a common process in choice (e.g., reinforcer maximization) for which matching and achieving the Nash equilibrium are derivative. Alternatively, if matching in choice is innate as some accounts argue, then achieving the Nash equilibrium may be an epiphenomenon of matching. Regardless, the wide species generality of matching relations in nonhuman choice suggests game play in chimpanzees would not prove advantaged relative to most species in the animal kingdom. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The effect of economy type on demand and preference for cocaine and saccharin in rats.

BACKGROUND: Economy type is an important determinant of reinforcer value. This study investigated the effect of open and closed economies on demand and preference for cocaine and saccharin in rats. METHODS: In the first phase, rats were trained to lever press for cocaine infusions or saccharin. The number of presses required for each reinforcer increased across sessions. Cocaine and saccharin economy type was manipulated over groups by varying post-session availability of these reinforcers. One group of rats had three hours' post-session access to unlimited cocaine (open economy). A second group had three hours' post-session access to unlimited saccharin. A third group had no post-session access to either reinforcer (closed economy). In a second phase, rats in the three conditions could make mutually exclusive choices for cocaine or saccharin. RESULTS: Post-session access to saccharin caused saccharin demand to become more elastic. Post-session access to cocaine had no effect on demand for cocaine but made demand for saccharin more elastic. Results from the choice phase generally paralleled those from the demand phase, the main finding being that post-session saccharin access caused an increase in cocaine preference. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that manipulating economy type can affect cocaine and non-drug reinforcers differently. Opening the saccharin economy decreased saccharin's value. Opening the cocaine economy did not decrease cocaine's value, but instead led to a devaluation of saccharin. These results suggest that cocaine choice may be determined not only by the reinforcers immediately available, but also by those reinforcers' broader contexts of availability.