A preliminary analysis of self-control with aversive events: the effects of task magnitude and delay on the choices of children with autism

When faced with a choice between two aversive events, a person exhibits self-control by choosing a smaller, more immediate aversive event over a larger, delayed aversive event. Task demands are often aversive to children with autism and other developmental disabilities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate behavioral sensitivity to differences in the amount and delay of tasks as part of a preliminary study on self-control. Participants were 2 children with autism who engaged in problem behavior maintained by escape. Results indicated a lack of self-control with respect to choosing between two aversive tasks and suggested potential strategies for increasing self-control (i.e., choosing a small immediate task over a large delayed task).     

Effects of signaled versus unsignaled delay of reinforcement on choice

Pigeons chose between 5-s and 15-s delay-of-reinforcement alternatives. The first key peck to satisfy the choice schedule began a delay timer, and food was delivered at the end of the interval. Key pecks during the delay interval were measured, but had no scheduled effect. In Experiment 1, signal conditions and choice schedules were varied across conditions. During unsignaled conditions, no stimulus change signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential and nondifferential signal conditions, offset of the choice stimuli and onset of a delay stimulus signaled the beginning of a delay interval. During differential signal conditions, different stimuli were correlated with the 5-s and 15-s delays, whereas the same stimulus appeared during both delay durations during nondifferential signal conditions. Pigeons showed similar, extreme levels of preference for the 5-s delay alternative during unsignaled and differentially signaled conditions. Preference levels were reliably lower with nondifferential signals. Experiment 2 assessed preference with two pairs of unsignaled delays in which the ratio of delays was held constant but the absolute duration was increased fourfold. No effect of absolute duration was found. The results highlight the importance of delayed primary reinforcement effects and challenge models of choice that focus solely on conditioned reinforcement.     

The debate over food biotechnology in the United States: is a societal consensus achievable?

Unless the public comes to agree that the benefits of food biotechnology are desirable and the associated risks are acceptable, our society may fail to realize much of the potential benefits. Three historical cases of major technological innovations whose benefits and risks were the subject of heated public controversy are examined, in search of lessons that may suggest a path toward consensus in the biotechnology debate. In each of the cases—water fluoridation, nuclear power and pesticides—proponents of the technology gathered scientific evidence that they believed established that the innovations were safe. In each case, the federal government was heavily involved in oversight, safety regulation, and in the first two cases, active promotion of the technology. Supporters of the technologies employed a variety of communications strategies, ranging from massive “educational” campaigns (e.g. “Our Friend The Atom”) to vituperative ad hominem attacks on leading opponents. None of these strategies succeeded in achieving broad societal acceptance of the technologies. Fluoridation today is opposed as vigorously by activist groups as it was when first introduced around 1950; it has not been universally adopted even in the U.S., and it has been rejected in most other countries. The American nuclear power industry is moribund, and the public has essentially rejected the technology. The pesticide industry is thriving, with new generations of products succeeding older more hazardous chemicals in a constant cycle. However, strong regulation has failed to prevent adverse health and ecological effects, which have been empirically associated with pesticide uses after the chemicals were dispersed in the environment. Debate over whether risks of such effects are acceptable has been heated for four decades, with scientists and the public divided. None of these cases offers an ideal model for the biotechnology revolution, though they do reveal many strategies that have not worked. The biotechnology debate is also taking place at a time when our concepts of risk communication have improved, and when many consumers are more actively concerned with buying products perceived to be less likely to harm the environment. Based on the three case histories and more recent trends, some characteristics of a process for seeking a societal consensus are described. They include explicitly defining the subjects for consensus; including all stakeholders in a respectful dialogue; confronting value issues, such as acceptability of risks and ethical perceptions; listening to others’ perspectives, and being willing to change one’s own point of view. If activists on all sides of the food biotechnology debate are willing to commit to such a consensus-building process, there is hope that the U.S. national debate can be resolved in a manner satisfactory to essentially all parties.     

家庭寄养和孤残儿童的社会适应能力发展

本研究运用儿童适应行为评定量表．对上海市的70名家庭寄养及31名在院的孤残儿童进行了测量。结果表明;家庭寄养有助于孤残儿童的适应能力的发展,而且传统的隔离式孤残儿童养育方式向融合式转变是成功的;孤残儿盘的寄养年龄越小．其适应能力越好,也越有利于安置的成功。     

Assessment of impulsivity and the development of self-control in students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

We examined a combined approach of manipulating reinforcer dimensions and delay fading to promote the development of self‐control with 3 students diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. First, we administered a brief computer‐based assessment to determine the relative influence of reinforcer rate (R), reinforcer quality (Q), reinforcer immediacy (I), and effort (E) on the students' choices between concurrently presented math problems. During each session, one of these dimensions was placed in direct competition with another dimension (e.g., RvI involving math problem alternatives associated with high‐rate delayed reinforcement vs. low‐rate immediate reinforcement), with all possible pairs of dimensions presented across the six assessment conditions (RvQ, RvI, RvE, QvI, QvE, IvE). The assessment revealed that the choices of all 3 students were most influenced by immediacy of reinforcement, reflecting impulsivity. We then implemented a self‐control training procedure in which reinforcer immediacy competed with another influential dimension (RvI or QvI), and the delay associated with the higher rate or quality reinforcer alternative was progressively increased. The students allocated the majority of their time to the math problem alternatives yielding more frequent (high‐rate) or preferred (high‐quality) reinforcement despite delays of up to 24 hr. Subsequent readministration of portions of the assessment showed that self‐control transferred across untrained dimensions of reinforcement.     

DO ADJUSTING‐AMOUNT AND ADJUSTING‐DELAY PROCEDURES PRODUCE EQUIVALENT ESTIMATES OF SUBJECTIVE VALUE IN PIGEONS?

The current experiment examined whether adjusting-amount and adjusting-delay procedures provide equivalent measures of discounting. Pigeons' discounting on the two procedures was compared using a within-subject yoking technique in which the indifference point (number of pellets or time until reinforcement) obtained with one procedure determined the value of the corresponding variable in the yoked condition with the other procedure. Behavior on each procedure was well described by a hyperbolic discounting function. Results revealed no systematic differences in the degree of discounting as measured by the discounting rate parameter of the hyperbola in Experiment 1, which used 20-mg pellets. These results were replicated in Experiment 2 using smaller, 14-mg pellets, which potentially yield more precise measurement of indifference points on the adjusting-amount procedure. The finding that estimates of the k parameter in the hyperbolic discounting function obtained with one procedure did not differ systematically from estimates obtained from the same subjects with the other procedure represents strong support for the hypothesis that the same process underlies the discounting of delayed rewards on both adjusting-amount and adjusting-delay procedures.     

Contingency tracking during unsignaled delayed reinforcement

Three experiments were conducted with rats in which responses on one lever (labeled the functional lever) produced reinforcers after an unsignaled delay period that reset with each response during the delay. Responses on a second, nonfunctional, lever did not initiate delays, but, in the first and third experiments, such responses during the last 10 s of a delay did postpone food delivery another 10 s. In the first experiment, the location of the two levers was reversed several times. Responding generally was higher on the functional lever, though the magnitude of the difference diminished with successive reversals. In the second experiment, once a delay was initiated by a response on the functional lever, in different conditions responses on the nonfunctional lever either had no effect or postponed food delivery by 30 s. The latter contingency typically lowered response rates on the nonfunctional lever. In the first two experiments, both the functional and nonfunctional levers were identical except for their location; in the third experiment, initially, a vertically mounted, pole-push lever defined the functional response and a horizontally mounted lever defined the nonfunctional response. Higher response rates occurred on the functional lever. These results taken together suggest that responding generally tracked the response-reinforcer contingency. The results further show how nonfunctional-operanda responses are controlled by a prior history of direct reinforcement of such responses, by the temporal delay between such responses and food delivery, and as simple generalization between the two operanda.     

Failure to replicate the 'work ethic" effect in pigeons

We report six unsuccessful attempts to replicate the "work ethic" phenomenon reported by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000). In Experiments 1-5, pigeons learned two simultaneous discriminations in which the S+ and S- stimuli were obtained by pecking an initial stimulus once or multiple (20 or 40) times. Subsequent preference tests between the S+ stimuli and between the S- stimuli mostly revealed indifference, on average, between the S+ from the multiple-peck (high-effort) trials and the S+ from the one-peck (low-effort) trials, and likewise between the two respective Sstimuli. Using a slightly different procedure that permitted assessment of the relative aversiveness of low versus high effort, Experiment 6 again revealed a pattern of indifference despite showing that pigeons took considerably longer to begin pecking on high- than on low-effort trials. Our findings call into question the reliability of the original findings and the sufficiency of the hypothesized within-trial contrast mechanism to produce them.     

Addendum to Killeen's (2019) Bidding for Delayed Rewards

Killeen (2019) portrayed an intimate relation between diverse economic indices, in particular compensation functions, discount functions, and demand functions. The article bemused some experts, however, by its counterintuitive prediction of an increase in the amount bid as the delay increased. Furthermore, the article failed to provide an explicit treatment of the small–soon versus large–late choice paradigm, to cite several papers that provided precedent for the current work, and to demonstrate the adequacy of his expenditure functions for data on purchasing decisions. These shortcomings are remedied in the current note, and some additional extensions offered.