ASSESSING INFLUENTIAL DIMENSIONS OF REINFORCERS ON CHOICE IN STUDENTS WITH SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE

We examined how reinforcer rate, quality, delay, and response effort combined to influence the choices of 6 youths with learning and behavior difficulties, and the viability of an assessment methodology derived from matching theory for determining differential responsiveness to those reinforcer and response dimensions. The students were given two concurrent sets of math problems that were equal on two dimensions but competed on two other dimensions (e.g., one set yielded higher rate and lower quality reinforcement than the other). Competing dimensions were counterbalanced across the six conditions of the initial assessment phase, permitting assessment of each dimension on time allocation. The conditions resulting in the most and least time allocated to one problem set alternative relative to the other were then replicated. Time allocated to each of the problems within sets was differentially affected by the reinforcer and/or response dimensions, with allocation patterns varying across students. The results are discussed in the context of implications for the design of treatments and extrapolations from basic research on matching and behavioral economics.     

IMPULSIVITY IN STUDENTS WITH SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF REINFORCER RATE,DELAY, AND QUALITY

We conducted two studies extending basic matching research on self-control and impulsivity to the investigation of choices of students diagnosed as seriously emotionally disturbed. In Study 1 we examined the interaction between unequal rates of reinforcement and equal versus unequal delays to reinforcer access on performance of concurrently available sets of math problems. The results of a reversal design showed that when delays to reinforcer access were the same for both response alternatives, the time allocated to each was approximately proportional to obtained reinforcement. When the delays to reinforcer access differed between the response alternatives, there was a bias toward the response alternative and schedule with the lower delays, suggesting impulsivity (i.e., immediate reinforcer access overrode the effects of rate of reinforcement). In Study 2 we examined the interactive effects of reinforcer rate, quality, and delay. Conditions involving delayed access to the high-quality reinforcers on the rich schedule (with immediate access to low-quality reinforcers earned on the lean schedule) were alternated with immediate access to low-quality reinforcers on the rich schedule (with delayed access to high-quality reinforcers on the lean schedule) using a reversal design. With 1 student, reinforcer quality overrode the effects of both reinforcer rate and delay to reinforcer access. The other student tended to respond exclusively to the alternative associated with immediate access to reinforcers. The studies demonstrate a methodology based on matching theory for determining influential dimensions of reinforcers governing individuals' choices.     

REINFORCER MAGNITUDE ATTENUATES: APOMORPHINE'S EFFECTS ON OPERANT PECKING

When given to pigeons, the direct‐acting dopamine agonist apomorphine elicits pecking. The response has been likened to foraging pecking because it bears remarkable similarity to foraging behavior, and it is enhanced by food deprivation. On the other hand, other data suggest the response is not related to foraging behavior and may even interfere with food ingestion. Although elicited pecking interferes with food capture, it may selectively alter procurement phases of feeding, which can be isolated in operant preparations. To explore the relation between operant and elicited pecking, we provided pigeons the opportunity to earn different reinforcer magnitudes during experimental sessions. During signaled components, each of 4 pigeons could earn 2‐, 4‐, or 8‐s access to grain for a single peck made at the end of a 5‐min interval. In general, responding increased as a function of reinforcer magnitude. Apomorphine increased pecking for 2 pigeons and decreased pecking for the other 2. In both cases, apomorphine was more potent under the component providing the smallest reinforcer magnitude. Analysis of the pattern of pecking across the interval indicated that behavior lost its temporal organization as dose increased. Because apomorphine‐induced pecking varied inversely with reinforcer magnitude, we conclude that elicited pecks are not functionally related to food procurement. The data are consistent with the literature on behavioral resistance to change and suggest that the effects of apomorphine may be modulated by prevailing stimulus—reinforcer relationships.