When do errors in reinforcer delivery affect learning? A parametric analysis of treatment integrity

Treatment integrity is the extent to which components of an intervention are implemented as intended (Gresham, 1989). Recent behavior-analytic literature has begun to evaluate the effects of reduced-treatment integrity on the efficacy and efficiency of skill-acquisition interventions. This study extended the current literature on the effects of errors of omission and commission of reinforcer delivery by replicating and extending Hirst and DiGennaro Reed (2015). Using a randomized-control group design, we compared undergraduate student participants' acquisition of conditional discriminations in a parametric analysis of different error values. A computer program erred in reinforcer delivery on 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 50% of trials. The purpose of the current study was to identify which levels of reduced integrity slowed or prevented acquisition. Our data replicated the findings of Hirst and DiGennaro Reed, and extended parametric analyses by identifying that errors in reinforcer delivery occurring on 15% or fewer trials (i.e., 85% integrity) were unlikely to prevent participants' responding from meeting the mastery criterion. These results could inform future research on how treatment-integrity errors change behavior-analytic procedures and the effects on skill acquisition for consumers of applied behavior analysis.     

Are choices based on conditional or conjunctive probabilities in a sequential risk-taking task?

In this study, we examined participants' choice behavior in a sequential risk-taking task. We were especially interested in the extent to which participants focus on the immediate next choice or consider the entire choice sequence. To do so, we inspected whether decisions were either based on conditional probabilities (e.g., being successful on the immediate next trial) or on conjunctive probabilities (of being successful several times in a row). The results of five experiments with a simplified nine-card Columbia Card Task and a CPT-model analysis show that participants' choice behavior can be described best by a mixture of the two probability types. Specifically, for their first choice, the participants relied on conditional probabilities, whereas subsequent choices were based on conjunctive probabilities. This strategy occurred across different start conditions in which more or less cards were already presented face up. Consequently, the proportion of risky choices was substantially higher when participants started from a state with some cards facing up, compared with when they arrived at that state starting from the very beginning. The results, alternative accounts, and implications are discussed.     

How Fragile Is Conditional Cooperation? A Field Experiment with Smartphones during the 2014 Soccer World Cup

We conducted an experiment in a highly cooperative environment to find out how a disruption, similar to a broken window, affects behavior. A centipede game was framed as a game of soccer and run with smartphones during a soccer public viewing event, that is, a Bavarian beer garden with a large screen displaying a soccer game. We provided some subjects with information that was supportive to cooperation and others with disruptive information, aimed at inducing a broken window effect. The disruption reduced the willingness to cooperate at the final stage of the game. But expectations regarding teammates remained unaffected such that cooperation at earlier stages remained high. Cooperation is thus not as fragile as one might fear. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Pluralism, scientific knowledge, and the fallacy of overriding values

The paper examines one implication of pluralism, the view that all values are conditional and none are overriding. This implication is that since scientific knowledge is one of the conditional values, there are circumstances in which the pursuit of even the most basic scientific knowledge is legitimately curtailed. These circumstances occur when the pursuit of scientific knowledge conflicts with moral and political values which, in that context, are more important than it. The argument focuses on the case for and against space exploration in search of intelligent extraterrestrial life. The widely held supposition that search for pure scientific knowledge cannot be reasonably curtailed is identified as the fallacy of overriding values.     

Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items

Some nonparametric dimensionality assessment procedures, such as DIMTEST and DETECT, use nonparametric estimates of item pair conditional covariances given an appropriately chosen subtest score as their basic building blocks. Such conditional covariances given some subtest score can be regarded as an approximation to the conditional covariances given an appropriately chosen unidimensional latent composite, where the composite is oriented in the multidimensional test space direction in which the subtest score measures best. In this paper, the structure and properties of such item pair conditional covariances given a unidimensional latent composite are thoroughly investigated, assuming a semiparametric IRT modeling framework called a generalized compensatory model. It is shown that such conditional covariances are highly informative about the multidimensionality structure of a test. The theory developed here is very useful in establishing properties of dimensionality assessment procedures, current and yet to be developed, that are based upon estimating such conditional covariances.In particular, the new theory is used to justify the DIMTEST procedure. Because of the importance of conditional covariance estimation, a new bias reducing approach is presented. A byproduct of likely independent importance beyond the study of conditional covariances is a rigorous score information based definition of an item's and a score's direction of best measurement in the multidimensional test space.This paper is based on a chapter of the first author's doctoral dissertation, written at the University of Illinois and supervised by the second author. Part of this research has been presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, April 1995.The authors would like to thank Jeff Douglas, Xuming He and Ming-mei Wang for their comments and suggestions. The research of the first author was partially supported by an ETS/GREB Psychometric Fellowship, and by Educational Testing Service Research Allocation Project 884-01. The research of the second author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS 97-04474.