Effects of reinforcement context on choice

Two experiments investigated the effects of successive reinforcement contexts on choice. In the first, concurrent variable-interval schedules of primary reinforcement operated during the initial links of concurrent chains. The rate of this reinforcement arranged by the concurrent schedules was decreased across conditions: When it was higher than the terminal-link rate, preference for the higher frequency initial-link schedule increased relative to baseline. (During baseline, a standard concurrent-schedule procedure was in effect). When the initial-link reinforcement rate was lower than the terminal-link rate, preference converged toward indifference. In the second experiment, a chain schedule was available on a third key while a concurrent schedule was in effect on the side keys. When the terminal link of the chain schedule was produced, the side keys became inoperative. Availability of the chain schedule did not affect choice between the concurrent schedules. These results show that only when successive reinforcement contexts are produced by choice responding do those successive contexts affect choice in concurrent schedules.     

Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation

The effects of two alternative sources of food delivery on the key-peck responding of pigeons were examined. Pecking was maintained by a variable-interval 3-min schedule. In the presence of this schedule in different conditions, either a variable-time 3-min schedule delivering food independently of responding or an equivalent schedule that required a minimum 2-s pause between a key peck and food delivery (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule) was added. The differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule reduced response rates more than did the variable-time schedule in most instances. The delay between a key peck and the next reinforcer consistently was longer under the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule than under the variable-time schedule. Response rates and median delay between responses and reinforcers were negatively correlated. These results contradict earlier conclusions about the behavioral effects of alternative reinforcement. They suggest that an interpretation in terms of response–reinforcer contiguity is consistent with the data.     

Reconsideration of measurement of error in human motor learning

Human motor learning is often measured by error scores. The convention of using mean absolute error, mean constant error, and variable error shows lack of desirable parsimony and interpretability. This paper provides the background of error measurement and states criticisms of conventional methodology. A parsimonious model of error analysis is provided, along with operationalized interpretations and implications for motor learning. Teaching, interpreting, and using error scores in research may be simplified and facilitated with the model.     

SETTING CUTOFF SCORES: LEGAL, PSYCHOMETRIC, AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES AND GUIDELINES

Cutoff scores are used in a variety of settings to help managers make personnel decisions. Although cutoff scores are used widely, information about their derivation and appropriate use is scattered in the legal, psychometric, and professional literatures. The purpose of this paper is to analyze critically and to integrate these diverse literatures, to summarize what is known and what is unknown about the use and misuse of cutoff scores. Alternative methods are examined in relation to legal precedents set by the courts, to psychometric principles, and to the various sets of professional guidelines. Directions for future research are suggested, and we conclude with a set of recommendations regarding acceptable professional practice in this area.     

Psychological gender, hand preferences, and sex differences in book-carrying styles

Individuals with stronger sex-role identities may be expected to show greater conformity to sex-typed behaviors. Proceeding from this assumption, the sex-role status and sex of students using different styles of carrying books were compared. This study also examined whether over-all hand preference or age were related to carrying styles or sex-role status. Subjects completed a questionnaire comprised of the 24-item Personal Attributes Questionnaire of Spence and Helmreich, a 6-item scale of hand preference and a self-rating of sex-role identity. Afterwards, each subject's carrying style was covertly observed and recorded. Most subjects carried their materials in a sex-typical way or in book bags (for which no sex-typed carrying styles were discovered). As in previous studies, men in this study scored higher than women on masculinity and androgyny and lower on femininity. Hand preference was not related to sex-role status. Carrying style was not significantly correlated with any of the predictor variables for men, perhaps because almost no variance in carrying style was observed among them. Women who used masculine carrying styles tended to be older, have greater instrumentality, and a more masculine identity.