The Faulty Magnitude Detector: Why SNARC‐Like Tasks Cannot Support a Generalized Magnitude System

Do people represent space, time, number, and other conceptual domains using a generalized magnitude system (GMS)? To answer this question, numerous studies have used the spatial‐numerical association of response codes (SNARC) task and its variants. Yet, for a combination of reasons, SNARC‐like effects cannot provide evidence for a GMS, even in principle. Rather, these effects support a broader theory of how people use space metaphorically to scaffold their understanding of myriad non‐spatial domains, whether or not these domains exhibit variation in magnitude.     

Evaluation of an indirect assessment for identifying tasks for functional analysis

Although a demand analysis is helpful for identifying potential establishing operations for the functional analysis (FA) demand condition, it may not always be practical due to time constraints. A potential alternative is the Negative Reinforcement Rating Scale (NRRS), an indirect assessment tool that may serve as a time efficient alternative to a demand analysis. The experimenter assessed the reliability and validity of the NRRS for 5 individuals with autism spectrum disorder who exhibited problem behavior. Multiple types of interrater reliability were assessed across 2 informants, and NRRS outcomes were compared to a subsequent demand analysis and FA to assess its validity. Reliability was high (M = 84%) for NRRS numerical ratings of categories but low (M = 32.9%) for specific examples provided. NRRS-identified highly aversive tasks yielded better correspondence with demand analysis outcomes than did NRRS-identified less aversive tasks.     

DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR AND NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AS CONTROL PROCEDURES DURING THE MODIFICATION OF A PRESCHOOLER'S COMPLIANCE1

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and noncontingent reinforcement were compared as control procedures during the modification of a 3-yr-old preschooler's compliance. The recorded reinforcer was teacher proximity (within 3 ft (0.9 m) of the subject for at least 5 sec) which was often accompanied by positive verbal comments that varied in content across experimental conditions. The verbal content during contingent reinforcement might have been: “Thank you for picking up the blocks”; during noncontingent reinforcement: “You're wearing a pretty dress”; and during DRO: “I don't blame you for not picking up because it isn't any fun”. Contingent reinforcement increased compliance in all manipulation conditions. Noncontingent reinforcement decreased compliance during two reversal conditions. However, the behavior was variable and did not decrease to the low levels reached during the two DRO reversals.     

Maximizing versus matching on concurrent variable-interval schedules

Maximization and matching predictions were examined for a time-based analogue of the concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio schedule. One alternative was a variable interval whose time base operated relatively independent of the schedule chosen, and the other was a discontinuous variable interval for which timing progressed only when selected. Pigeons switched between schedules by pecking a changeover key. The maximization hypothesis predicts that subjects will show a bias toward the discontinuous variable interval and undermatching; however the obtained results conformed closely to the predictions of the matching law. Finally, a quantitative comparison was made of the bias and sensitivity estimates obtained in published concurrent variable-interval variable-ratio analogue studies. Results indicated that only the ratio-based analogue of the concurrent variable interval variable ratio studied by Green, Rachlin, and Hanson (1983) produced significant bias toward the variable-ratio alternative and undermatching, as predicted by reinforcement maximization.     

The role of the response-reinforcer relation in delay-of-reinforcement effects

The role of the response-reinforcer relation in maintaining operant behavior under conditions of delayed reinforcement was investigated by using a two-operandum (i.e., two-key) procedure with pigeons. Responding on one key was reinforced under a tandem variable-interval differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (tandem VI DRO) schedule. The schedule defined a resetting unsignaled delay-of-reinforcement procedure in that a response was required when the interfood interval of the VI schedule lapsed, but further responding during the DRO component on either key reset the time interval. This ensured a fixed delay duration between any response and reinforcement. Responding on another key, physically identical to the first one except for spatial location, otherwise was without consequence. The location of the key correlated with the delay-of-reinforcement procedure varied between sessions according to a semirandom sequence. Differences in response rates between the two keys were greater, with proportionally higher rates on the key correlated with the delay-of-reinforcement procedure, the longer the delay-of-reinforcement procedure remained correlated with the same key. Differences in responding on the two keys also increased within individual sessions. These results suggest that the response-reinforcer relation is the primary determinant of responding when responding is acquired and maintained with delayed reinforcement.