Bias in self-evaluation: Signal probability effects

Two experiments examined apparent signal probability effects in simple verbal self-reports. After each trial of a delayed matching-to-sample task, young adults pressed either a “yes” or a “no” button to answer a computer-presented query about whether the most recent choice met a point contingency requiring both speed and accuracy. A successful matching-to-sample choice served as the “signal” in a signal-detection analysis of self-reports. Difficulty of matching to sample, and thus signal probability, was manipulated via the number of nonmatching sample and comparison stimuli. In Experiment 1, subjects exhibited a bias (log b) for reporting matching-to-sample success when success was frequent, and no bias or a bias for reporting failure when success was infrequent. Contingencies involving equal conditional probabilities of point consequences for “I succeeded” and “I failed” reports had no systematic effect on this pattern. Experiment 2 found signal probability effects to be evident regardless of whether referent-response difficulty was manipulated in different conditions or within sessions. These findings indicate that apparent signal probability effects in self-report bias that were observed in previous studies probably were not an artifact of contingencies intended to improve self-report accuracy or of the means of manipulating signal probability. The findings support an analogy between simple self-reports and psychophysical judgments and bolster the conclusion of Critchfield (1993) that signal probability effects can influence simple self-reports much as they do reports about external stimuli in psychophysical experiments.     

Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding

Humans were presented with a task that required moving a light through a matrix. Button presses could produce light movements according to a multiple fixed-ratio 18/differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 6-s schedule, with components alternating every 2 min. Moving the light through the maze earned points worth chances on money prizes. In Experiment 1 four conditions were assessed through between-subject comparisons: minimal instructions, instructions to press rapidly, instructions to press slowly, and instructions that sometimes rapid responding would work while at other times a slow rate would work best. Subjects responded in three successive sessions of 32 min each. The results suggested that instructions affected the nature of the contact made with the programmed consequences and thus subsequent performance. In some cases, responding seemed to result from added contingencies introduced by stating rules. In Experiment 2 the relative contribution of these two effects was assessed by presenting and then withdrawing two lights that had been paired with two specific instructions: “Go Fast” or “Go Slow.” There were three conditions. In one condition, only the Go Fast light was on; in a second, only the Go Slow light was on; and in a third, the lights alternated each minute. In each condition, half the subjects had all instruction lights turned off after the first session. The results once again showed an effect of instructions on contact with the programmed consequences. However, responding sometimes continued in a manner consistent with added contingencies for rule-following even when the programmed consequences had been contacted and would have controlled a different type of responding in the absence of instructions. The relevance of added contingencies for rule-following in determining the effects of explicitly programmed consequences is emphasized.     

Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.     

Feedback effects on sequential ordering in humans

Under various feedback conditions, 38 college undergraduates were asked to rearrange abstract graphic characters on a computer screen, placing them in arbitrarily designated “correct” sequences. Two sets of seven horizontally arrayed stimuli were used. In Experiment 1, subjects in Group 1 learned to arrange the first set under Selection Feedback in which a “+” appeared above each character after it was selected in the correct order and to arrange the second set under Order Feedback in which a correct response produced a copy of the character in its correct ordinal position at the top of the screen. For Group 2 the order of these conditions was reversed. In Experiment 2, for subjects in Group 3, correct responses produced neither of these types of feedback. Subjects in Group 4 received Order Feedback only until the first set was correctly ordered once. Order Feedback was more effective than Selection Feedback during initial acquisition of the first set but not during maintenance; no differences were found for the second set. Only 2 of 9 subjects successfully put the characters in correct sequential order under the No Feedback condition. When, in Experiment 2, Order Feedback was eliminated after the first correctly arranged sequence, the steady-state criteria were met more slowly than in Experiment 1.     

Conditioned reinforcement and discrimination in second-order schedules

Pigeons were exposed to multiple second-order schedules in which responding on the “main key” was reinforced according to either a variable-interval or fixed-interval schedule by production of a brief stimulus on the “brief-stimulus key”. A response was required to the brief stimulus during its fourth (final) presentation to produce food; responses to the earlier brief stimuli indicated the extent to which the final brief stimulus was discriminated from preceding ones. Main-key response rates were higher in early components of paired brief-stimulus schedules, in which each brief stimulus was the same as that paired with reinforcement, than in comparable unpaired brief-stimulus or tandem schedules. Poor discrimination occurred between paired brief stimuli (Experiment I). When chain stimuli on the main key induced a discrimination between the first two and second two brief stimuli, the response-rate enhancement in the paired brief-stimulus schedule persisted (Experiment II). Rate enhancement diminished when the initial link of the chain included the first three components (Experiment IV). Eliminating the contingency between responding and brief-stimulus production also diminished rate enhancement (Experiment III). The results show that the discriminative and conditioned reinforcing effects of food-paired brief stimuli may be selectively manipulated and suggest that the reinforcing effects are modulated by other reinforcers in the situation.     

Stimulus properties of conspecific behavior

Two experiments identified the conditions in which the behavior of one bird acquired discriminative control of the behavior of a second bird. The schedule-controlled behaviors of the “stimulus” bird were differentially correlated with the components of a multiple schedule according to which the pecking of an “experimental” bird produced food. In Experiment 1, three pairs of pigeons acquired a successive discrimination and two reversals with the conspecific stimuli. Experiment 2 included a control condition in which no systematic relationship existed between the conspecific stimuli and the component schedules. While differential responding during the components of the multiple schedule was again found when the conspecific stimuli were available, differential responding did not occur in the control condition. Test conditions included in the experiments indicated that (a) the differential responding was not dependent on the discriminative properties of reinforcement, (b) the pecking of the stimulus and experimental birds was temporally interrelated, (c) the visual conspecific stimuli were critical to the maintenance of the discrimination, and (d) the observed stimulus control immediately generalized to an unfamiliar conspecific.     

Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua

A procedure developed earlier (Terrace, 1963) successfully trained a red-green discrimination without the occurrence of any errors in 12 out of 12 cases. Errorless transfer from the red-green discrimination to a discrimination between a vertical and a horizontal line was accomplished by first superimposing the vertical and the horizontal lines on the red and green backgrounds, respectively, and then fading out the red and the green backgrounds. Superimposition of the two sets of stimuli without fading, or an abrupt transfer from the first to the second set of stimuli, resulted in the occurrence of errors during transfer. Superimposition, however, did result in some “incidental learning”. Performance following acquisition of the vertical-horizontal discrimination with errors differed from performance following acquisition without errors. If the vertical-horizontal discrimination was learned with errors, the latency of the response to S+ was permanently shortened and errors occurred during subsequent testing on the red-green discrimination even though the red-green discrimination was originally acquired without errors. If the vertical-horizontal discrimination was learned without errors, the latency of the response to S+ was unaffected and no errors occurred during subsequent testing on the red-green discrimination.     

Conditioning of within-trial patterns of key pecking in pigeons

The possibility of conditioning systematic patterns of responding during brief discrete trials was studied by requiring hungry pigeons to key peck and then pause or to pause and then key peck in order to gain access to food. These schedules were highly effective in promoting decelerated and accelerated rates of responding, respectively, within individual trials; indeed, performance was quite similar to that observed when explicit external stimuli were correlated with “peck” and “pause” portions of the daily trials. Finally, schedules of reinforcement that did not selectively reinforce peck-pause or pause-peck patterns neither generated these patterns nor maintained them at the previous high levels. The results, therefore, confirm Shimp's (1976) proposal that organized groupings of discrete responses may function as operants—even in the absence of strict response-reinforcer contiguity.     

The repeated acquisition of behavioral chains

Monkeys were trained with food reinforcement in a chamber containing four groups of three levers. For each session the monkey's task was to learn a new four-response chain by pressing the correct lever in each group. A stable pattern of learning resulted, and the number of errors reached a steady state from session to session. The technique was then used to determine how various durations of timeouts, following errors, affected the acquisition of new chains. With no timeout, the monkeys made a great many errors, due in large part to superstitious responses within the reinforced chain. Timeout durations ranging from 1 sec to 4 min reduced the number of errors substantially. A second experiment investigated the effects upon acquisition errors of presenting a single light (an “instruction” stimulus) over the correct lever. When this light did not influence the monkeys' responses to the three alternatives, the chains were learned as without it. When the light did control responding, the monkey pressed the appropriate sequence of levers but did not learn the sequence. Thus, when the light was removed, the monkey performed as if learning that sequence for the first time.     

Conditioning history and the control of human avoidance and escape responding

Inter-subject differences in response rates under free-operant avoidance and escape schedules are commonly obtained from humans. Data are presented which demonstrate that such differences can be controlled experimentally by giving subjects different conditioning histories. Subjects given a fixed-ratio history avoided and/or escaped from “point-loss periods” at higher rates than subjects given a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rates history. History related differences in response rates were maintained during 40 hr of escape responding. For low-rates history subjects, response rates under escape contingencies decreased as the rate of point-loss periods decreased.     

Programming stimuli in matching to sample

In these investigations, a “teaching machine” was used to train pre-school and first-grade children in a series of progressively difficult discrimination tasks, leading up to matching to sample. Such training was much more efficient than training in the final discrimination alone. The errors the subjects made were found to be a functon both of the differences between consecutive discriminations (the “size of the steps” in the program) and the length of training on each discrimination. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Teaching serial position sequences to monkeys with a delayed matching-to-sample procedure

Comparison was made of two methods for training monkeys to “observe” a two-member serial position sequence by pressing two consecutively lighted keys and then to “report” the sequence by pressing the same two keys in the same order but without the lights. A fading technique involving gradual elimination of brightness cues from “reporting” keys was found more effective than a no-fading procedure in which the cues remained bright during training and then were suddenly removed. Animals that failed to learn to report a new sequence with the no-fading procedure sometimes developed behavior incompatible with that desired. They made repeated and specific errors that prematurely terminated trials of the sequence to-be-learned, even though the correct key was cued by a bright light. They behaved appropriately, however, on succeeding trials of other sequences. Thus, the errors were followed by trials on which reinforcement occurred. Manipulation of this contingency indicated its importance in maintaining the stereotyped error patterns.     

The effect of overtraining on behavioral contrast and the peak-shift

Following initial discrimination training between two wavelength stimuli and a subsequent generalization test to the wavelength dimension, Group 1 was “overtrained” for 105 days on the original discrimination. Group 2 was “overtrained” with the original positive stimulus and a new negative stimulus, a white line. Group 3 was “overtrained” with the original negative stimulus and a new positive stimulus, the white line. Each 15 days of extended training were followed by a wavelength generalization test similar to the first test. The results suggest that there is no consistent relationship between the response rate in positive stimulus immediately before the generalization test and whether or not a peak shift occurs during the test.     

Partial avoidance contingencies: Absolute omission and punishment probabilities

Avoidance contingencies were defined by the absolute probability of the conjunction of responding or not responding with shock or no shock. The “omission” probability (ρ₀₀) is the probability of no response and no shock. The “punishment” probability (ρ₁₁) is the probability of both a response and a shock. The traditional avoidance contingency never omits shock on nonresponse trials (ρ₀₀=0) and never presents shock on response trials (ρ₁₁=0). Rats were trained on a discrete-trial paradigm with no intertrial interval. The first lever response changed an auditory stimulus for the remainder of the trial. Shocks were delivered only at the end of each trial cycle. After initial training under the traditional avoidance contingency, one group of rats experienced changes in omission probability (ρ₀₀>0), holding punishment probability at zero. The second group of rats were studied under different punishment probability values (ρ₁₁>0), holding omission probability at zero. Data from subjects in the omission group looked similar, showing graded decrements in responding with increasing probability of omission. These subjects approximately “matched” their nonresponse frequencies to the programmed probability of shock omission on nonresponse trials, producing a very low and approximately constant conditional probability of shock given no response. Subjects in the punishment group showed different sensitivity to increasing absolute punishment probability. Some subjects decreased responding to low values as punishment probability increased, while others continued to respond at substantial levels even when shock was inevitable on all trials (noncontingent shock schedule). These results confirm an asymmetry between two dimensions of partial avoidance contingencies. When the consequences of not responding included occasional omission of shock, all subjects showed graded sensitivity to changes in omission frequency. When the consequences of responding included occasional shock delivery, some subjects showed graded sensitivity to punishment frequency while others showed control by overall shock frequency as well.     

Preference for signaled over unsignaled shock schedules: Ruling out asymmetry and response fixation as factors

Experiment 1 tested whether a “symmetrical” choice procedure yields results different from those previously reported using the “unidirectional” standard changeover procedure (e.g., Badia & Culbertson, 1972). Subjects could change at any time from unsignaled to signaled shock by pressing a lever and from signaled to unsignaled shock by pressing a second lever. Results were identical to those of the standard procedure and showed that the standard procedure is fully adequate. Experiment 2 tested whether choice of high density signaled shock over low-density unsignaled shock (Badia, Coker, & Harsh, 1973) resulted from initial training with equal-density schedules. Subjects were trained and tested with signaled shock twice as dense as unsignaled shock. Three of four subjects strongly preferred the signaled condition, thus ruling out carry-over and “response fixation” as alternative explanations.     

College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity

Two experiments investigated the role of temporal contiguity in college students' responding to and rating of contingency relations during operant conditioning. Schedules were devised that determined when but not whether appetitive or aversive events would occur. Subjects' reports concerning the schedules were obtained by means of a 200-point rating scale, anchored by the phrases “prevents the light from occurring” (−100) and “causes the light to occur” (+100). When tapping a telegraph key advanced the time of point gain, responding was maintained or increased and subjects gave positive ratings. When tapping a telegraph key advanced the time of point loss, subjects also gave positive ratings, but responding now decreased. When key tapping delayed the time of point gain, responding decreased and subjects gave negative ratings. When key tapping delayed the time of point loss, subjects also gave negative ratings, but responding now increased. These findings implicate response-outcome contiguity as an important contributor to causal perception and to reinforcement and punishment effects. Other accounts—such as those stressing the local probabilistic relation between response and outcome or the molar correlation between response rate and outcome rate—were seen to be less preferred interpretations of these and other results.     

Pigeons'' spatial memory: II. Acquisition of delayed matching of key location and transfer to new locations

Five hungry pigeons first received delayed matching of key location training. Trials began with a “ready” stimulus (brief operation of the grain feeder). Then one (randomly chosen) of a set of four keys from a three-by-three matrix was lit briefly as the sample. After a short delay (retention interval), the sample key was lit again along with one of the other eight keys. A peck at the key that had served as the sample produced grain reinforcement, whereas a peck to the other key produced only the intertrial interval. After delayed matching of key location was learned, the remaining five key locations were introduced as samples. Four of the five birds performed at considerably above-chance levels on the novel sample trials during the first as well as subsequent sessions. These results suggest that pigeons sometimes learn the single rule—“choose the location that matches the sample.” The relevance of these results to the issue of whether pigeons learn a generalized matching rule (i.e., a concept of “sameness”) is discussed.     

Duration-reduction of avoidance sessions as negative reinforcement

Five rats were exposed to a shock-postponement procedure in which responses on each of two levers initially had equivalent effects. After an initial training sequence that ensured at least some responding on each lever, an additional consequence was made conjointly operative on the previously less-preferred lever for each animal. Each response on this lever continued to postpone shock, but also reduced the session duration by one minute. The conjoint contingencies were operative until, through session-shortening responses and the passage of time, the session was scheduled to end in two minutes; during the final two minutes the session-shortening contingency was disabled while the shock-postponement contingency continued to be operative on both levers. When responding shifted to a predominance on the session-shortening lever, the conjoint contingency was shifted to the other lever; for four of the five rats this reversal was followed by two additional reversals. Two of the rats' responding showed clear, strong, and unambiguous sensitivity to the session-shortening contingency. The responding of two others was also systematically controlled by that contingency, but the effects were less clearcut. The fifth animal showed an initial shift when session-shortening was introduced, but its subsequent behavior proved insensitive to reversals of procedure. The results clearly indicate a sensitivity of behavior to events on a time scale quite distinct from that of immediate consequences. They also support an interpretation of avoidance sessions, considered in their entirety, as events whose contingent relationship to behavior can affect that behavior—even in the absence of stimuli that delineate those relationships. Finally, these results support an interpretation of aversively based conditioning within a broader context, analogous to the “open versus closed economy” interpretation of appetitively controlled behavior.     

Food delivery as a conditional stimulus: Feature-learning and memory in pigeons

Three experiments investigated the learning and memory of discriminations based on presence versus absence of a pre-trial food delivery. In Experiment 1 half the illuminations of a response key were followed by food regardless of the subject's behavior. In one group an extra food delivery preceded only reinforced trials (feature-positive condition), whereas in a second group it preceded only nonreinforced trials (feature-negative condition). Key pecks and approaches revealed more rapid and superior discrimination learning in the first group. Experiment 2 replicated the results of Experiment 1 but yielded no evidence that greater “unexpectedness” of pretrial food conditions facilitates discriminative performance. In Experiment 3, individual pigeons trained on a conditional discrimination exhibited a within-subject feature-positive superiority. Delay between pretrial and trial stimuli interacted with feature-positive versus feature-negative training in both the between-group (Experiment 2) and within-subject (Experiment 3) procedures: performance was decremented at both short and long delays in the feature-positive condition but was decremented only at longer delays in the feature-negative condition. The feature-positive superiority obtained here is incompatible with explanations based on either the general concept of “perceptual organization” or on the conditional nature of feature-negative discriminations.     

Sequential effects in dimensional contrast

Two experiments examined pigeons' response rates during short trials signaled by stimuli closely spaced along a wavelength continuum. In Experiment 1 separate halves of the continuum were correlated with different reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 2, the middle stimulus was accompanied by a lower probability of reinforcement than were the remaining wavelengths. Both procedures resulted in dimensional contrast “shoulders,” seen as relatively enhanced or depressed response rates in the presence of stimuli between the extreme of the continuum and the border separating the positive and negative stimuli. Sequential analyses addressed possible contributions of the following interactions: (a) local contrast, seen when rate during a given schedule depends on the schedule in the just-preceding trial; (b) modification of local contrast by the similarity of the signaling stimuli (P. Blough, 1983); and (c) schedule-independent rate contrast, seen when rate in a given trial depends on the rate controlled by the stimulus that accompanied the just-preceding trial (Malone & Rowe, 1981). Dimensional contrast functions were similar when isolated according to the schedule, to the similarity of the signaling stimulus, and to the response rate of the just-preceding trial. The interactions noted above do not appear to make important contributions to this effect.