Concurrent schedules: How responses per reinforcer affects estimates of sensitivity to reinforcement

Conventionally, when choice is measured under concurrent schedules, all responses are included. However, the class of all responses consists of 2 sub-classes which are discriminable by their properties: Reinforced responses always equal obtained reinforcers, while unreinforced responses are free to vary. As a result, the inclusion of reinforced responses in choice measures results in sensitivity values in generalized matching that are biased toward larger values, and this bias becomes extreme in some combinations of overall response and reinforcer rates. Different ways of varying concurrent-schedule values also affect estimated sensitivity and the linearity between choice based on all responses and reinforcer ratios. To avoid spurious results and comparisons, and as a matter of good practice, generalized-matching fits and measures should be done using only unreinforced responses.     

Does overall reinforcer rate affect discrimination of time‐based contingencies?

Overall reinforcer rate appears to affect choice. The mechanism for such an effect is uncertain, but may relate to reinforcer rate changing the discrimination of the relation between stimuli and reinforcers. We assessed whether a quantitative model based on a stimulus‐control approach could be used to account for the effects of overall reinforcer rate on choice under changing time‐based contingencies. On a two‐key concurrent schedule, the likely availability of a reinforcer reversed when a fixed time had elapsed since the last reinforcer, and the overall reinforcer rate was varied across conditions. Changes in the overall reinforcer rate produced a change in response bias, and some indication of a change in discrimination. These changes in bias and discrimination always occurred quickly, usually within the first session of a condition. The stimulus‐control approach provided an excellent account of the data, suggesting that changes in overall reinforcer rate affect choice because they alter the frequency of reinforcers obtained at different times, or in different stimulus contexts, and thus change the discriminated relation between stimuli and reinforcers. These findings support the notion that temporal and spatial discriminations can be understood in terms of discrimination of reinforcers across time and space.     

Speculation and theory-building in the development of psychology as a science

In this commentary on a classic article by Paul Wachtel on the importance of theoretical work in empirical research, the author expresses agreement that reward structures discourage the kind of theoretical speculation that may lead to new understandings of existing data and, even more critically, to new ways of formulating questions to be addressed in controlled research. Our students in particular need to be encouraged to reflect on what their own empirical research really means within the larger framework of trying to understand the world in psychological terms. New theories and paradigms do not emerge inevitably from a body of data. Rather, they represent creative insights whose sources are poorly understood and yet are overlooked at our risk.     

A theory of attending, remembering, and reinforcement in delayed matching to sample

A theory of attending and reinforcement in conditional discriminations is extended to working memory in delayed matching to sample by adding terms for disruption of attending during the retention interval. Like its predecessor, the theory assumes that reinforcers and disruptors affect the independent probabilities of attending to sample and comparison stimuli in the same way as the rate of overt free-operant responding as suggested by Nevin and Grace, and that attending is translated into discriminative performance by the model of Davison and Nevin. The theory accounts for the effects of sample-stimulus discriminability and retention-interval disruption on the levels and slopes of forgetting functions, and for the diverse relations between accuracy and sensitivity to reinforcement reported in the literature. It also accounts for the effects of reinforcer probability in multiple schedules on the levels and resistance to change of forgetting functions; for the effects of reinforcer probabilities signaled within delayed-matching trials; and for the effects of reinforcer delay, sample duration, and intertrial-interval duration. The model accounts for some data that have been problematic for previous theories, and makes testably different predictions of the effects of reinforcer probabilities and disruptors on forgetting functions in multiple schedules and signaled trials.     

The biological bases of unfairness: Neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice

A classic debate in the organizational justice literature concerns the question of whether procedural justice and distributive justice are independent constructs. We investigate this question by using fMRI methods to examine brain activation patterns associated with procedural and distributive unfairness. We observed a clear dissociation of activation between these two forms of justice, and only a minimal amount of shared activation in the hypothesized regions. Specifically, unfair procedures evoked greater activation in parts of the brain related to social cognition, such as the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and the superior temporal sulcus (STS), whereas unfair outcomes evoked greater activation in more emotional areas of the brain, such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), anterior insula (AI) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We interpret the findings as supporting the notion that the two forms of justice reflect distinct constructs, while recognizing that, as forms of justice, they are closely related nomologically.     

Team structure and regulatory focus: the impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic

We report a within-teams experiment testing the effects of fit between team structure and regulatory task demands on task performance and satisfaction through average team member positive affect and helping behaviors. We used a completely crossed repeated-observations design in which 21 teams enacted 2 tasks with different regulatory focus characteristics (prevention and promotion) in 2 organizational structures (functional and divisional), resulting in 84 observations. Results suggested that salient regulatory demands inherent in the task interacted with structure to determine objective and subjective team-level outcomes, such that functional structures were best suited to (i.e., had best fit with) tasks with a prevention regulatory focus and divisional structures were best suited to tasks with a promotion regulatory focus. This contingency finding integrates regulatory focus and structural contingency theories, and extends them to the team level with implications for models of performance, satisfaction, and team dynamics.     

Coordinated action in multiteam systems

This study investigated coordinated action in multiteam systems employing 233 correspondent systems, comprising 3 highly specialized 6-person teams, that were engaged in an exercise that was simultaneously "laboratory-like" and "field-like." It enriches multiteam system theory through the combination of theoretical perspectives from the team and the large organization literatures, underscores the differential impact of large size and modular organization by specialization, and demonstrates that conventional wisdom regarding effective coordination in traditional teams and large organizations does not always transfer to multiteam systems. We empirically show that coordination enacted across team boundaries at the component team level can be detrimental to performance and that coordinated actions enacted by component team boundary spanners and system leadership positively impact system performance only when these actions are centered around the component team most critical to addressing the demands of the task environment.     

Factor Analytic Modeling of Within Person Variation in Score Profiles

A profile is a vector of scores for one examinee. The mean score in the vector can be interpreted as a measure of overall profile height, the variance can be interpreted as a measure of within person variation, and the ipsatized vector of score deviations about the mean can be said to describe the pattern in the score profile. A within person pattern interpretation of orthogonal factor loadings is developed. A statistic is proposed to index the amount of within person variation accounted for by an orthogonal factor. The statistic can be used to determine whether a factor warrants a within person pattern interpretation. A factor model with a random coefficient intercept is proposed for the study of within person score patterns accounting for within person variation. Two examples, one involving items from the Life Orientation Test and the other involving subscales of the Strong Vocational Interest Inventory, illustrate application of the factor model with an intercept, the within person variation statistic, and the profile pattern interpretation of factor loadings. With empirical support from the examples, it is conjectured that theoretically important traits often manifest themselves through within person score patterns.