Density and delay of punishment of free-operant avoidance

In two experiments, the free-operant shock-avoidance behavior of rats was punished by electric shock. Two aspects of the schedule of response-produced shock were varied: the frequency of punishment over time (punishment density) and the temporal interval between the punished response and the punishment (punishment delay). The general finding was that response-produced shock suppressed avoidance responding under most of the density-delay combinations studied, and suppression increased as a function of increases in density and decreases in delay. Rate increases of small magnitude also were observed, usually as an initial reaction to the lesser densities and longer delays. Response suppression, while decreasing the number of punishment shocks received, also increased the number of avoidance shocks, so that the total number of shocks received usually was greater than the minimal number possible. The results were discussed from the standpoint of similarities between the effects of punishing positively and negatively reinforced behavior. The finding that subjects did not minimize the total number of shocks suggested that when avoidance behavior is punished, responding is controlled more by the local consequences of responding than by overall shock frequencies during the course of the session.     

Some problems in the study of differences in cognitive processes

To test whether groups differ in a particular ability, researchers often compare their performance on two tasks: an experimental task that is sensitive to the ability of interest and a control task that measures other influences on the experimental task. A group difference will be reflected in a differential deficit, a greater difference between groups in experimental task performance than in control task performance. Before concluding from such a result that the groups differ in the ability of interest, three methodological problems must be faced. First, a differential deficit may be an artifact of task differences in discriminating power. That is, the experimental task may be more sensitive than the control task to group differences in abilities other than the one of interest. Second, a differential deficit may be an artifact of group differences in familiarity with the stimuli or the task. Third, a group difference in one ability may be due to a difference in some other ability that is more, or less, general than the first. These problems affect research in a number of areas, including cognitive development, psychopathology, learning disabilities, and the theory of intelligence. We discuss some possible solutions to these problems.     

Caffeine ingestion,misattribution therapy,and speech anxiety

While theoretical analogs of misattribution therapy appeared promising (Nisbett & Schachter, 1966; Ross, Rodin, & Zimbardo, 1969), attempts with clinically relevant behaviors have not been so successful (Kellogg & Baron, 1975; Singerman, Borkovec, & Baron, 1976). Since the plausibility of the misattribution manipulation appears to be the central problem, the present study attempted to increase plausibility by manipulating familiarity with the setting and actual psychological arousal in a clinically relevant situation. Subjects only slightly fearful of giving speeches presented a speech in front of two observers. Familiarity was varied by having half of the subjects give a pretest speech, while arousal was manipulated by having half of the subjects ingest caffeine while the others ingested a placebo just prior to the test speech. The subjects' attributions were varied by giving them either arousal or irrelevant symptom instructions regarding the effects of the ingested drug. Direct suggestion rather than misattribution effects occurred: Those subjects receiving arousal symptoms reported more nervousness than subjects who had received irrelevant symptoms. The authors conclude that while the misattribution effect may have experimental validity, it is not effective with clinically relevant behavior.     

Aggression-inhibiting influence of sexual humor

Forty-eight undergraduate males participated in an experiment designed to investigate the hypothesis that prior exposure to sexual humor would reduce the level of aggression directed by angry individuals against the person who had previously provoked them. In order to examine this suggestion, subjects were first angered or not angered by a male confederate; next, exposed to either neutral, nonhumorous pictures or to one of two types of sexual humor (nonexploitative, exploitative); and finally, provided with an opportunity to aggress against this individual by means of electric shock. Results indicated that exposure to exploitative sexual humor, but not exposure to nonexploitative sexual humor, significantly reduced the strength of subjects' later attacks against the victim. These findings are discussed in terms of the results of a follow-up study suggesting that individuals are more likely to think or fantasize about exploitative than nonexploitative sexual humor following the removal of such stimuli.     

The place of the human subject in the operant laboratory

Although laboratory study of human behavior seems an obvious vehicle for strengthening the scientific base of behavior analysis, the place of the human subject within the operant laboratory remains problematic. The prevailing research strategy has been to link principles developed with animals to human affairs, either through interpretation of naturally occurring human behaviors or through application of the principles to the solution of human problems. The paucity of laboratory research on human operant behavior derives from several misconceptions: the possibility that experimental demand characteristics and pre-experimental behavioral dispositions of human subjects contaminate the results; that ethical considerations place undue constraint on research topics and experimental designs; and that uncontrollable variation in subjects' histories and other relevant personal characteristics prevents observation of reliable functional relations. We argue that these problems do not pose insurmountable obstacles to the experimental analysis of human behavior; that adequate methods of control and analysis are available; and that operant techniques, by emphasizing experimentally imposed contingencies, are well suited for the laboratory study of human behavior.     

Human, free-operant avoidance of “time out” from monetary reinforcement

To assess the aversive effects of withdrawing monetary reinforcement, human subjects were exposed to a free-operant avoidance procedure in which periods of no reinforcement occurred if the subject failed to respond, and each response postponed withdrawal of reinforcement. Avoidance behavior was developed either through specific instructions about the consequence of responding or through preliminary escape-avoidance training. In all cases, rates of response were found to be a positively accelerated function of decreases in the duration by which responding postponed reinforcement withdrawal. The findings with respect to the function relating avoidance behavior to the interval of postponement were viewed as similar to those obtained when shock is used as the aversive event in free-operant avoidance conditioning.     

Judgements of compensation for misfortune: The role of expectation

In three questionnaire studies, we asked subjects how much compensation should be provided, by a third party, to an accident victim. We tested the hypothesis, derived from norm theory, that compensation would be greater when the injury was less to be expected, e.g. when the injury was caused by failure - as opposed to success - of a safety routine. To rule out the possibility that such expectation effects depended on subjects' anticipations of the reactions of the parties involved in the accident. the parties were said to be ignorant of factors that could affect these reactions. Effects of expectation were still found, even when subjects themselves judged the accident to be equally serious in all conditions. Information about what would have happened in the absence of the cause (e.g. if the routine had succeeded instead of failed) affected compensation. as predicted by norm theory, but expectation effects were found even when this information about counterfactuals was held constant, so norm theory cannot account for all the results. We suggest that subjects are applying simple heuristics unreflectively Subjects may also have attempted to fulfil an implicit social contract through their awards. The results cannot be explained through the hypothesis that compensation was optimal: the accident was the same, and it had no deterrent effect, so optimal compensation should be the same in all cases.