Attention, awareness of contingencies, and control in spatial localization: a qualitative difference approach

The qualitative difference method for distinguishing between aware and unaware processes was applied here to a spatial priming task. Participants were asked simply to locate a target stimulus that appeared in one of four locations, and this target stimulus was preceded by a prime in one of the same four locations. The prime location predicted the location of the target with high probability (p = .75), but prime and target mismatched on a task-relevant feature (identity, color). Across 5 experiments, we observed repetition costs in the absence of awareness of the contingency, and repetition benefits in the presence of awareness of the contingency. These results were particularly clear-cut in Experiment 4, in which awareness was defined by reference to self-reported strategy use. Finally, Experiment 5 showed that frequency-based implicit learning effects were present in our experiments but that these implicit learning effects were not strong enough to override repetition costs that pushed performance in the opposite direction. The results of these experiments constitute a novel application of the qualitative difference method to the study of awareness, learning of contingencies, and strategic control.     

On privacy, causes, and contingencies

Radical behaviorism may be distinguished from other varieties of behaviorism, notably methodological behaviorism, by the way it accommodates private events in causal explanations of behavior. That is, in an operational sense, radical behaviorism accommodates private phenomena in the context of the three term contingency of reinforcement with regard to their discriminative function, their nature as responses, or their reinforcing function. In any case, any contribution of a private phenomenon is presumably linked at some point to a prior public event that has endowed the private phenomenon with its functional significance.     

Molecular contingencies: reinforcement probability

Pigeons obtained food by responding in a discrete-trials two-choice probability-learning experiment involving temporal stimuli. A given response alternative, a left- or right-key peck, had 11 associated reinforcement probabilities within each session. Reinforcement probability for a choice was an increasing or a decreasing function of the time interval immediately preceding the choice. The 11 equiprobable temporal stimuli ranged from 1 to 11 sec in 1-sec classes. Preference tended to deviate from probability matching in the direction of maximizing; i.e., the percentage of choices of the preferred response alternative tended to exceed the probability of reinforcement for that alternative. This result was qualitatively consistent with probability-learning experiments using visual stimuli. The result is consistent with a molecular analysis of operant behavior and poses a difficulty for molar theories holding that local variations in reinforcement probability may safely be disregarded in the analysis of behavior maintained by operant paradigms.     

Contingent on contingencies: Connections between anger rumination,self-esteem,and aggression

Mixed findings have engendered debate regarding the relationship between self-esteem and aggression. The present study tested the hypothesis that the contingency of perceived self-worth on external factors (i.e., contingent self-esteem) predicts aggression, particularly reactive, over and above global self-esteem, and that anger rumination exacerbates this relationship. The potential moderating role of gender was also considered. Regression analyses on a sample of 729 undergraduates revealed that contingent self-esteem interacts with both anger rumination and gender to predict reactive aggression. In combination with observations for proactive aggression, results of the present study suggest that the variation in previous findings may be at least partly explained by failure to account for the influences of self-esteem contingency, gender, and functional subtypes of aggression.     

Faustian bargains: Short-term and long-term contingencies in phylogeny,ontogeny, and sociogeny

Rachlin's interpretations of self-control depend on the short-term versus the long-term consequences of behavior. Sometimes these effects support each other (typing an abstract produces a written product now and is later read by others). Sometimes they conflict (procrastination now is incompatible with finishing the abstract by deadline). We usually reserve the language of self-control for human cases where long-term consequences are chosen over short-term ones. Rachlin made this distinction salient in ontogeny, but it also applies to selection in phylogeny (Darwinian evolution) and sociogeny (behavior passed from one organism to another). Our account examines relations between short-term and long-term consequences at each level of selection. For example, sexual selection has adaptive, short-term mating consequences but may drive species to extreme specializations that jeopardize long-term survival. In sociogeny, as in the Tragedy of the Commons, group members may get immediate economic benefits from exploiting resources but exhaust those resources over the long term. Whatever the level, when short-term and long-term consequences have opposing effects, adaptive behavior may depend on whether temporally extended contingencies exert more control than more immediate benefits.     

Interpersonal contingencies: Performance differences and cost-effectiveness

Three reinforcement contingencies were compared with regard to performance differences and cost-effectiveness (i.e., responses per unit reinforcer). Pairs of college students were studied under individual, cooperative, or competitive contingencies using a concurrent setting that included one of these three contingencies as one alternative and a lower paying individual contingency as the other alternative. With the individual and the cooperative contingencies, overall response rates were typically high; under competitive contingencies the overall response rates were substantially lower. Subjects responded at very high rates when competing, but chose not to compete most of the time. Competition and cooperation produced the most cost-effective responding, assessed as the number of responses made per $.01 of reinforcer. High overall rates of competitive responding were obtained when the contests were longer and the lower paying alternative contingency was not available.     

Choice and response contingencies

Two experiments investigated the extent to which response contingencies influence the choice between two schedules of reinforcement by exposing pigeons to a concurrent-chains procedure in which reinforcers in one terminal link were response-independent, and in the other terminal link, response-dependent. In Experiment 1, the pigeons were indifferent between an aperiodic, response-independent schedule and an aperiodic, response-dependent schedule that required a minimum rate of responding. This finding limits the generality of a required-rate contingency as a determinant of choice, which contingency had been previously demonstrated in a context of periodic reinforcement to evoke preference for an alternate schedule. In Experiment 2, the pigeons preferred a periodic, response-independent schedule to a periodic, response-dependent schedule that shared a feature with a required-rate schedule: there was a requirement to respond early in the interreinforcement interval, when responding produced reinforcement only later. The results of the two experiments suggest the following general interpretation: pigeons prefer a second schedule to the extent that the response contingencies of the first schedule must be satisfied during discriminable periods of nonreinforcement.     

A sequent calculus for a logic of contingencies

We introduce a sequent calculus that is sound and complete with respect to propositional contingencies, i.e., formulas which are neither provable nor refutable. Like many other sequent and natural deduction proof systems, this calculus possesses cut elimination and the subformula property and has a simple proof search mechanism.     

Cooperative learning and group contingencies

This paper discusses the similarities and differences between cooperative learning and group contingencies. Cooperative learning refers to any methods in which students work together to help one another learn, while group contingencies refer to rewarding students based on the performance of a group. Research on the achievement effects of cooperative learning finds that these methods are effective primarily when they incorporate group contingencies, when groups are rewarded based on the average of their members' individual learning performances. The use of group contingencies within cooperative learning is hypothesized to motivate students to do a good job of explaining concepts and skills to their groupmates, and elaborated explanation is the principal behavior found to account for achievement gains in cooperative learning.