Rethinking reinforcement: allocation, induction, and contingency

The concept of reinforcement is at least incomplete and almost certainly incorrect. An alternative way of organizing our understanding of behavior may be built around three concepts: allocation, induction, and correlation. Allocation is the measure of behavior and captures the centrality of choice: All behavior entails choice and consists of choice. Allocation changes as a result of induction and correlation. The term induction covers phenomena such as adjunctive, interim, and terminal behavior-behavior induced in a situation by occurrence of food or another Phylogenetically Important Event (PIE) in that situation. Induction resembles stimulus control in that no one-to-one relation exists between induced behavior and the inducing event. If one allowed that some stimulus control were the result of phylogeny, then induction and stimulus control would be identical, and a PIE would resemble a discriminative stimulus. Much evidence supports the idea that a PIE induces all PIE-related activities. Research also supports the idea that stimuli correlated with PIEs become PIE-related conditional inducers. Contingencies create correlations between "operant" activity (e.g., lever pressing) and PIEs (e.g., food). Once an activity has become PIE-related, the PIE induces it along with other PIE-related activities. Contingencies also constrain possible performances. These constraints specify feedback functions, which explain phenomena such as the higher response rates on ratio schedules in comparison with interval schedules. Allocations that include a lot of operant activity are "selected" only in the sense that they generate more frequent occurrence of the PIE within the constraints of the situation; contingency and induction do the "selecting."     

SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST? A CROSS-SPECIES ANALYSIS OF CHOICES BETWEEN REINFORCER SEQUENCES

Two experiments were conducted to compare choices between sequences of reinforcers in pigeon (Experiment 1) and human (Experiment 2) subjects, using functionally analogous procedures. The subjects made pairwise choices among 3 sequence types, all of which provided the same overall reinforcerment rate, but differed in their temporal patterning. Token reinforcement schedules were used in both experiments and the type of exchange schedule varied across blocks of sessions. Some conditions permitted immediate exchange of tokens for consumable reinforcers (food for pigeons, video access for humans); in other conditions, tokens accumulated and were exchanged for consumable reinforcers only at the end of the sequence. Choice patterns in the immediate-exchange conditions were generally similar across species, with both pigeons and humans preferring sequences with the shortest delay to the initial reinforcer in the series. The results are broadly consistent with models of temporal discounting expanded to include the impact of sequences of delayed reinforcers acting in parallel from the time of the choice. Preferences were less consistent with discounting models in the delayed exchange conditions. Questionnaire data gathered at the end of the experiment were consistent with prior results of questionnaire studies, but showed no straightforward relation to the observed choice patterns, urging caution in the extrapolation of results from one decision-making domain to the other.     

Relative efficacy of human social interaction and food as reinforcers for domestic dogs and hand-reared wolves

Despite the intimate relationship dogs share with humans in Western society, we know relatively little about the variables that produce and maintain dog social behavior towards humans. One possibility is that human social interaction is itself a reinforcer for dog behavior. As an initial assessment of the variables that might maintain dog social behavior, we compared the relative efficacy of brief human social interaction to a small piece of food as a reinforcer for an arbitrary response (nose touch). We investigated this in three populations of canids: shelter dogs, owned dogs, and hand-reared wolves. Across all three canid populations, brief social interaction was a relatively ineffective reinforcer compared to food for most canids, producing lower responding and longer latencies than food.     

EFFECTS OF A SIGNALED DELAY TO REINFORCEMENT IN THE PREVIOUS AND UPCOMING RATIOS ON BETWEEN-RATIO PAUSING IN FIXED-RATIO SCHEDULES

Domestic hens responded under multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules with equal fixed ratios. One component provided immediate reinforcement and the other provided reinforcement after a delay, signaled by the offset of the key light. The components were presented quasirandomly so that all four possible transitions occurred in each session. The delay was varied over 0, 4, 8, 16, and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 5 schedules, and over 0, 8 and 32 s with fixed‐ratio 1, 15 and 40 schedules. Main effects of fixed‐ratio value and delay duration were detected on between‐ratio pauses. Pauses were longer when the multiple‐schedule stimulus correlated with a delayed‐reinforcer component was presented, with the longest pauses occurring at the transition from a component with an immediate reinforcer to one with a delayed reinforcer. Pause durations were shortest during immediate components. Overall, both the presence or absence of a delay in the upcoming component, and the presence or absence of a delay in the preceding component affected pause length, but the upcoming delay had the larger effect. Thus changes in delay had similar effects to past reports of the effects of changes in response force, response requirement, and reinforcer magnitude in multiple fixed‐ratio fixed‐ratio schedules.     

A Different View of Anger: The Cognitive‐Neoassociation Conception of the Relation of Anger to Aggression

The common, everyday understanding of anger is problematic in a number of respects—in its inattention to the prototypic nature of this emotional state; in its failure to recognize the important role often played by the critical event's aversiveness; and in its neglect of the frequently close connection between anger arousal and aggression‐related motor impulses. This article discusses all of these matters from the point of view of my cognitive‐neoassociation perspective [Berkowitz, 1990, 1993, 2010; Berkowitz and Harmon‐Jones, 2004]. The role of automatic, nonconscious reactions is considered, and it is also emphasized that angry feelings are linked to approach motivation—movement toward the perceived source of the anger. The article also briefly summarizes relevant research dealing with the self‐regulation of anger reactions. This broad review hopefully will prompt further inquiries into the arousal, nature, and operation of anger. Aggr. Behav. 38:322‐333, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.