Acquisition and maintenance of trusting behavior

This study determined whether a two-person exchange situation contained natural contingencies for trusting behavior or whether external contingencies were necessary. Pairs of college students worked matching-to-sample problems for money. On each trial there was one problem and the subjects determined which of them would solve it. Trusting behavior was defined as an increase in the number of consecutive problems each subject allowed his partner to work during sessions that also ended with an equitable distribution. Simply, trust was a temporary deviation from equity. A subject could give the problem to the other person (cooperate), or not respond and let the other person take the problem (share). Other possibilities were for both subjects to try to take the problem (complete), or for neither subject to respond and thereby let the person who worked the last problem also work the next one (passive trust). When only four lever pulls were required to distribute a problem (no external contingencies to reach either equity or trust) subjects reached equity, but only minimal trust (strict alternation of single problems) developed in 18 sessions. When 30 or 60 lever pulls were required to distribute a problem (smaller response requirement for passive trust and therefore a contingency for trust), trusting behavior developed after a few sessions (fixed ratio 30) or after several trials of the first session (fixed ratio 60) and it ordinarily expanded gradually to 10 to 15 consecutive problems through passive trust. The aversiveness of the inequity involved in trusting appears to necessitate a contingency for acquisition. Once trust develops, however, this aversiveness is reduced as subjects learn the inequity is only temporary (e.g., once trust was acquired at fixed ratio 60 it was maintained at fixed ratio 4, which would not initially produce it), and the direction of the inequity appears to become of questionable importance (e.g., being behind was alternated over rather than within sessions and usually not in a systematic manner).     

Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements: competition requires more responding

Two pairs of high-school students matched-to-sample for money. On each trial, a subject could either respond on one lever to take the matching-to-sample problem himself (taking response) or respond on a second lever to give the problem to his coactor (giving response). The first subject to complete the response requirement determined the distribution of the problem. Competition maximizes the amount of responding over trials, i.e., both subjects make taking responses on each trial. Sharing and cooperation minimize responding: only one subject makes a taking response (sharing) or a giving response (cooperation) on each trial, and the subjects alternate responding such that there is an equitable distribution of responses and reinforcers over trials. Large increases in the fixed-ratio response requirement to distribute problems produced: (1) a switch from competition to sharing or cooperation, (2) the expected concomitant change from inequitable to equitable distributions of reinforcers, and (3) a reduction in the amount of responding for three of the four subjects. Previous animal research has shown that large response requirements may have aversive properties. Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements allows a reduction in responding and, at the same time, a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject.     

Does teaching an omnibus mand preclude the development of specifying mands?

When problem behavior is controlled by a synthesized reinforcement contingency, a simple omnibus mand that yields access to all reinforcers simultaneously has been shown to effectively replace problem behavior. The question arises as to whether teaching an omnibus mand will preclude the acquisition of specifying mands for each of the combined reinforcers. In this study, after 3 students diagnosed with autism acquired an omnibus mand (“My way, please”) that yielded all identified reinforcers simultaneously, specifying mands (e.g., “All done,” “May I have my toys?” “Play with me”) were taught to yield each individual reinforcer (e.g., escape, tangibles, attention). Problem behavior was immediately eliminated for all children, and the omnibus mand was acquired quickly. Teaching an omnibus mand did not preclude acquisition of specifying mands for any learner and instead allowed for the acquisition of specifying mands once problem behavior had been effectively reduced.     

The measurement of sharing and cooperation as equity effects and some relationships between them

The initial objective was to determine whether an increase in cooperative responses (minimal cooperation) was also accompanied by an increase in the degree of correspondence in the number of reinforcers of the two subjects (maximal cooperation). Correct matching-to-sample responses of seven pairs of male adolescents were reinforced with money. On each trial, a subject could (1) give the matching-to-sample problem to his coactor (give or cooperative responses), or (2) take the problem for himself (take responses). The first member of the pair to respond made the choice. Correspondence did increase under this procedure as compared to a baseline where problems were distributed randomly. However, the increased correspondence usually resulted from take responses rather than cooperative give responses. This equitable method of problem distribution, designated as sharing, was characterized by the subjects alternately taking problems. The spacing of daily sessions may have been partly responsible for the high degree of correspondence, because correspondence did not increase within the usual number of sessions when the sessions were massed, i.e., all in one day. Daily sessions require cooperative responses, i.e., each subject has to show up each day for the other to earn money, and this dependency upon the coactor's behavior may facilitate some sharing or cooperation to ensure the coactor's attendance.     

Being there on time: Reinforcer effects on timing and locating

In research on timing, reinforcers often are assumed to influence discrimination of elapsed time. We asked whether changes in choice used to measure timing arise because of joint control by elapsed time and reinforcers, rather than from the direct modification of control by elapsed time by reinforcers. Pigeons worked on a concurrent-choice task in which 1 response was 9 times more likely to produce a reinforcer, reversing between locations when 19 s had elapsed since the marker event. Across conditions, we manipulated the percentage of reinforcers arranged before the probability reversal from 5 to 95%. These changes in reinforcer percentages altered control by location-based elements of the contingency, but not by time-based elements. Choice was well described by a model that assumes that control by the contingency is weakened by generalization across the time and location of reinforcers, and that these generalizations become more likely at later times since a marker. These findings add to a growing body of research that suggests that reinforcers share the same function as other environmental events in determining how the environment controls behavior.     

Comparing functional analysis and paired-choice assessment results in classroom settings

The results of a functional analysis of problem behavior and a paired-choice assessment were compared to determine whether the same social reinforcers were identified for problem behavior and an appropriate response (time allocation). The two assessments were conducted in classroom settings with 4 adolescents with mental retardation who engaged in severe problem behavior. Each student's classroom teacher served as the therapist for all phases of assessment. The two assessment procedures identified the same social reinforcers for problem and appropriate behavior for 3 of 4 participants.     

Human Sensitivity To Concurrent Schedules Of Reinforcement: Effects Of Observing Schedule-correlated Stimuli

The determinants of human sensitivity to concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules of reinforcement have been difficult to identify, in part because of procedural differences separating published experiments. This experiment investigated vigilance to stimuli correlated with concurrent schedules. Across phases, 3 college students were provided with either no schedule-correlated stimuli, an observing response that provided brief access to the stimuli, or a contingency that required the subject to identify the stimulus correlated with the source of each obtained reinforcer. Sensitivity, as quantified by the generalized matching equation, was low when no stimuli were available. When the stimuli were response contingent, 1 subject observed them, and her behavior became more sensitive to the distribution of reinforcers across the concurrent schedules. When the procedure required discrimination of the stimulus correlated with each reinforcer, the other 2 subjects also observed the stimuli, and their schedule sensitivity was increased as well. These results implicate procedural differences, rather than inherent behavioral differences, as the source of differences in sensitivity to schedules of reinforcement between humans and nonhumans.     

A translational evaluation of potential iatrogenic effects of single and combined contingencies during functional analysis

Recent research suggests that combining putative reinforcers for problem behavior into a single, synthesized contingency may increase efficiency in identifying behavioral function relative to traditional functional analysis (FA). Other research suggests potential shortcomings of synthesized contingency analysis (SCA), such as the potential for false-positive outcomes. In prior comparisons of traditional FAs and SCAs, investigators could not ascertain with certainty the true function(s) of the participants' problem behavior for use as the criterion variable. We conducted a translational study to circumvent this limitation by training a specific function for a surrogate destructive behavior prior to conducting a traditional FA and SCA. The traditional FA correctly identified the previously established function of the target response in all six cases and produced no iatrogenic effects. The SCA produced differentiated results in all cases and iatrogenic effects (i.e., an additional function) in three of six cases. We discuss these findings in terms of the mechanisms that may promote iatrogenic effects.     

Synthesizing concurrent interval performances

Concurrent schedules may be viewed as consisting of two pairs of stay and switch schedules, each pair associated with one of the alternatives. A stay schedule arranges reinforcers for staying and responding at one alternative, whereas the associated switch schedule arranges reinforcers for switching to the other alternative. In standard concurrent schedules, the stay schedule at each alternative is equivalent to the switch schedule at the other alternative. MacDonall (1999) exposed rats to one pair of stay and switch variable-ratio schedules and varied the response requirements across conditions. Combining results from symmetric pairs produced composite performances that were described by the generalized matching law. This outcome was noteworthy because the data were obtained from performances at two alternatives with contingencies that were functionally unrelated to each other. This result suggests that concurrent performances may consist of two unrelated performances that alternate as behavior moves between alternatives. The purpose of the present experiment was to extend those results to interval schedules. Rats were exposed to pairs of random-interval schedules, and across conditions their mean intervals were varied. When data from appropriately paired conditions were combined, the composite performances were consistent with the generalized matching law. In addition, the results supported two models of concurrent performances that were based on local variables at an alternative (behavior, and stay and switch reinforcers): a modified version of the contingency discrimination model (Davison & Jenkins, 1985) and the local model (MacDonall, 1999).     

Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition

We examined the extent to which noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), when used as treatment to reduce problem behavior, might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. After conducting a functional analysis to identify the reinforcers maintaining 2 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB), we delivered those reinforcers under dense NCR schedules. We delivered the same reinforcers concurrently under differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingencies in an attempt to strengthen replacement behaviors (mands). Results showed that the NCR plus DRA intervention was associated with a decrease in SIB but little or no increase in appropriate mands. In a subsequent phase, when the NCR schedule was thinned while the DRA schedule remained unchanged, SIB remained low and mands increased. These results suggest that dense NCR schedules may alter establishing operations that result in not only suppression of problem behavior but also interference with the acquisition of appropriate behavior. Thus, the strengthening of socially appropriate behaviors as replacements for problem behavior during NCR interventions might best be achieved if the NCR schedule is first thinned.     

Reinforcing capabilities of television distortion

The effectiveness of television distortion as a negative reinforcer was analyzed. Contingency arrangements involving television distortion were found to be capable of (a) accelerating the work rate of a naive, mildly retarded subject on a simulated production-line task involving card-sorting, and (b) reducing gross hyperactivity of a mildly retarded subject. An escape-avoidance contingency was arranged for the production-line behavior of the first subject and a punishment contingency for the hyperactive behavior of the second subject. Television distortion appears to be an effective and practical negative reinforcer for use in behavior modification.     

A translational comparison of contingency‐based progressive delay procedures and their effects on contextually appropriate behavior

Schedule thinning is an essential step in treating problem behavior, yet little research has been conducted to determine the method associated with sustained treatment effects. A frequently used method for thinning reinforcement is contingency‐based progressive delay, which requires the individual to meet some criteria before the reinforcers are returned. The response requirement could be dependent on (a) contextually appropriate behavior (differential reinforcement of alternative behavior‐based thinning) or (b) absence of problem behavior (differential reinforcement of other behavior‐based thinning). A translational arrangement with college students was implemented to determine the effects of these 2 response requirements. Tolerance was observed regardless of thinning method and was indicated by low rates of responding to the analogue problem behavior; however, more contextually appropriate behavior occurred during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior‐based thinning. These results support the use of response requirements for behaviors that are expected of the individual when reinforcement is not immediately forthcoming.     

Matching theory and induction explain operant performance

Matching theory is a general framework for understanding allocation of behavior among activities. It applies to choice in concurrent schedules and was extended to single schedules by assuming that other unrecorded behavior competes with operant behavior. Baum and Davison (2014) found that the competing activities apparently are induced by the “reinforcers” (phylogenetically important events, e.g., food) according to power functions. Combined with power-function induction, matching theory provides new equations with greater explanatory power. Four pigeons were exposed to conditions in which 7 different schedules of food delivery were presented within each experimental session. We replicated earlier results with variable-interval schedules: (a) a negatively accelerated increase of peck rate as food rate increased in the low range of food rates; (b) an upturn in pecking at higher rates; and (c) a downturn in pecking at extremely high food rates. When the contingency between pecking and food was removed, the food continued to induce pecking, even after 20 sessions with no contingency. A ratio schedule inserted in place of 1 variable-interval schedule maintained peck rates comparable to peck rates maintained by short interval schedules. We explained the results by fitting equations that combined matching theory, competition, and induction.     

A comparison of differential reinforcement and noncontingent reinforcement for the treatment of a child's multiply controlled problem behavior

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) with escape as the reinforcer were evaluated after an initial functional analysis indicated the problem behaviors exhibited by a 7 year old child were maintained by escape. When NCR and DRO did not decrease the problem behaviors, a second functional analysis was conducted and showed that the behaviors were maintained by attention and escape. DRO with attention and escape as reinforcers was compared to NCR with attention and escape as reinforcers for the treatment of the child's multiply controlled behavior problems. Results showed that DRO and NCR were both effective at reducing the problem behavior to low levels and increasing compliance. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reciprocal cooperation in dyads

This study investigated the conditions that promote long-term social exchange when the immediate payoff for social participation is equal to or less than for individual responding. The 10 subjects, from a special education unit and ranging between 10 and 16 years of age, comprised five dyads to participate in daily 20-min sessions. During the first experiment, the subjects sat beside each other and in front of an automated apparatus which automatically distributed points (representing money) to self, to partner, or to the group. During baseline conditions, the subjects could earn reinforcers from all three modes. During the dependency conditions, which alternated between subjects at 3-day intervals, one subject could earn reinforcers from all three modes while a partner could earn reinforcers only from the mode requiring subject's assistance. Four of the five dyads increased their levels of cooperative responding during the several reversals in which first one and then the other subject was dependent upon the partner for reinforcement. This pattern maintained when the method of distributing reinforcers was changed to a manual procedure requiring the experimenter to record point distributions by transferring beads on an abacus. This suggested that the distribution modes rather than the experimental apparatus were important in promoting the cooperative pattern. In the second experiment all subjects continued to cooperate with partner, even when they could have earned more by working alone. Eventually a value for the self mode was reached where the subjects discontinued their cooperation to work for self.     

The effects of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” reinforcement contingencies on task behavior

In spite of a substantial number of observations to the contrary, some behavioral scientists have concluded that salient extrinsic reinforcers not only do not maintain or support task behavior, they decrease or extinguish it by somehow destroying or impairing “intrinsic motivation.” In this study it was once again demonstrated that when behavior is sustained in a task setting in the apparent absence of salient extrinsic reinforcers, quite subtle but nevertheless palpable response-produced stimulus changes are found to be involved. Moreover, when a signaled extrinsic monetary reinforcement contingency was applied, it not only did not impair the effects of the intrinsic reinforcers, it produced a significant increase in task performance during the time the extrinsic reinforcement contingency prevailed, and it did not produce a decrement in self-reports of task attractiveness nor in performance during a discretionary period in which the contingency had been deliberately withdrawn. We conclude that there is little reason to believe that the design and implementation of effective extrinsic reinforcement contingencies will destroy one's pride in one's work, the intrinsic worth or meaningfulness of the job, or one's “intrinsic motivation” to perform it.     

The effects of response-reinforcer contingency on time allocation in the open field

The present experiment explores the effects of the response (1-sec occupancy of a target area in an open field)—reinforcer (intracranial stimulation) contingency on time allocation in the open field in rats. The probability of reinforcement given a response (X) and the probability of reinforcement given the absence of a response (Y) were varied randomly across sessions within a subject. The following (X, Y) values were utilized: (.05, 0), (.15, 0), (.25, 0), (.15, .05), and (.15, .15). The results of this experiment indicate that rate of acquisition of time allocation preference is uniformly rapid during all contingency treatments wherein Y = 0 and is negatively related to the value of Y when X = .15. The relationship between the asymptote of the time allocation acquisition function and the value of X (when Y = 0) is positively sloped and negatively accelerated, while the relationship between asymptote and the value of Y (when X = .15) is negatively sloped with zero acceleration. Proposed contingency metrics are evaluated.     

Run length, visit duration, and reinforcers per visit in concurrent performance

The contingencies in each alternative of concurrent procedures consist of reinforcement for staying and reinforcement for switching. For the stay contingency, behavior directed at one alternative earns and obtains reinforcers. For the switch contingency, behavior directed at one alternative earns reinforcers but behavior directed at the other alternative obtains them. In Experiment 1, responses on the main lever, in S1, incremented stay and switch schedules and obtained a stay reinforcer when it became available. Responses on the switch lever changed S1 to S2 and obtained switch reinforcers when available. In S2, neither responses on the main lever nor on the switch lever were reinforced, but a switch response changed S2 to S1. Run lengths and visit durations were a function of the ratio of the scheduled probabilities of reinforcement (staying/switching). From run lengths and visit durations, traditional concurrent performance was synthesized, and that synthesized performance was consistent with the generalized matching law. Experiment 2 replicated and extended this analysis to concurrent variable-interval schedules. The synthesized results challenge any theory of matching that requires a comparison among the alternatives.     

Control by reinforcers across time and space: A review of recent choice research

Reinforcers affect behavior. A fundamental assumption has been that reinforcers strengthen the behavior they follow, and that this strengthening may be context‐specific (stimulus control). Less frequently discussed, but just as evident, is the observation that reinforcers have discriminative properties that also guide behavior. We review findings from recent research that approaches choice using nontraditional procedures, with a particular focus on how choice is affected by reinforcers, by time since reinforcers, and by recent sequences of reinforcers. We also discuss how conclusions about these results are impacted by the choice of measurement level and display. Clearly, reinforcers as traditionally considered are conditionally phylogenetically important to animals. However, their effects on behavior may be solely discriminative, and contingent reinforcers may not strengthen behavior. Rather, phylogenetically important stimuli constitute a part of a correlated compound stimulus context consisting of stimuli arising from the organism, from behavior, and from physiologically detected environmental stimuli. Thus, the three‐term contingency may be seen, along with organismic state, as a correlation of stimuli. We suggest that organisms may be seen as natural stimulus‐correlation detectors so that behavioral change affects the overall correlation and directs the organism toward currently appetitive goals and away from potential aversive goals. As a general conclusion, both historical and recent choice research supports the idea that stimulus control, not reinforcer control, may be fundamental.     

The Influence of Function,Topography, and Setting on Noncontingent Reinforcement Effect Sizes for Reduction in Problem Behavior: A Meta-analysis of Single-Case Experimental Design Data

Richman et al. (J Appl Behav Anal 48:131–152, 2015) completed a meta-analytic analysis of single-case experimental design data on noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) for the treatment of problem behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. Results showed that (1) NCR produced very large effect sizes for reduction in problem behavior, (2) NCR implemented with the functional reinforcer resulted in a slightly larger effect size compared to NCR using nonfunctional reinforcers, and (3) schedule thinning for the delivery of reinforcers typically produced temporary and modest increases in levels of problem behavior. The purpose of the current study was to conduct follow-up analyses to determine whether treatment implementation setting, topography, or the function of problem behavior influenced the treatment effect size for problem behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. Follow-up analyses showed that NCR effect sizes were very similar across inpatient and outpatient settings and across aggression and property destruction versus self-injurious behaviors. Results showed that NCR effect size for treatment of problem behavior maintained by a form of social reinforcement was slightly greater than problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. Results are discussed in terms of applying NCR in school settings as an initial treatment for problem behaviors that can interfere with academic, adaptive, and vocational skill acquisition for students with developmental disabilities.