Active versus reactive cooperativeness in Borderline Psychopathology: A dissection based on the HEXACO model of personality

The concept of personality disorders (PDs) is shifting from categorical to dimensional, conceptualizing PDs as maladaptive variants of basic personality traits. The Agreeableness trait in the Five Factor Model of personality classically represents dispositional cooperativeness, which is associated with PDs characterized by interpersonal impairments. However, recent research designates two separate dispositional tendencies: active and reactive cooperativeness. Using the HEXACO model of personality we assessed traits representing these tendencies (Honesty–Humility and Agreeableness) and investigated their relation to Borderline features in 602 individuals. Borderline features were associated with low Agreeableness scores, representing low reactive cooperation, entailing a tendency to retaliate. Yet, there was no association with Honesty–Humility, implying intact active cooperativeness and non-exploitation. These findings extend prior results on the relation between Borderline PD and basic personality dimensions driving prosocial behavior. Implications for the understanding of interpersonal problems in PDs and the refinement of existing therapies are discussed.     

Reinforcer choice as an antecedent versus consequence

Four children with autism received opportunities to choose among several preferred stimuli either immediately before or after task responding. The response requirement for reinforcement systematically increased within each session. Two children engaged in higher levels of responding when reinforcement choice was provided as an antecedent to task completion, and 3 of the 4 children showed a preference for the antecedent choice condition.     

Contingent Stimuli Signal Subsequent Reinforcer Ratios

Conditioned reinforcer effects may be due to the stimulus' discriminative rather than its strengthening properties. While this was demonstrated in a frequently‐changing choice procedure, a single attempt to replicate in a relatively static choice environment failed. We contend that this was because the information provided by the stimuli was nonredundant in the frequently‐changing preparation, and redundant in the steady‐state arrangement. In the present experiments, 6 pigeons worked in a steady‐state concurrent schedule procedure with nonredundant informative stimuli (red keylight illuminations). When a response‐contingent red keylight signaled that the next food delivery was more likely on one of the two alternatives, postkeylight choice responding was reliably for that alternative. This effect was enhanced after a history of extended informative red keylight presentation (Experiment 2). These results lend support to recent characterizations of conditioned reinforcer effects as reflective of a discriminative, rather than a reinforcing, property of the stimulus.     

Examining the discriminative and strengthening effects of reinforcers in concurrent schedules

Reinforcers may increase operant responding via a response-strengthening mechanism whereby the probability of the preceding response increases, or via some discriminative process whereby the response more likely to provide subsequent reinforcement becomes, itself, more likely. We tested these two accounts. Six pigeons responded for food reinforcers in a two-alternative switching-key concurrent schedule. Within a session, equal numbers of reinforcers were arranged for responses to each alternative. Those reinforcers strictly alternated between the two alternatives in half the conditions, and were randomly allocated to the alternatives in half the conditions. We also varied, across conditions, the alternative that became available immediately after a reinforcer. Preference after a single reinforcer always favored the immediately available alternative, regardless of the local probability of a reinforcer on that alternative (0 or 1 in the strictly alternating conditions, .5 in the random conditions). Choice then reflected the local reinforcer probabilities, suggesting some discriminative properties of reinforcement. At a more extended level, successive same-alternative reinforcers from an alternative systematically shifted preference towards that alternative, regardless of which alternative was available immediately after a reinforcer. There was no similar shift when successive reinforcers came from alternating sources. These more temporally extended results may suggest a strengthening function of reinforcement, or an enhanced ability to respond appropriately to "win-stay" contingencies over "win-shift" contingencies.     

Human responding with mutual reinforcement: Baseline and effects of an intervention1

Pressing a key by one undergraduate provided another undergraduate with points exchangeable for money, and vice versa. Four types of response patterns were found. Points were often delivered with a delay from the last response or with no response. When a contingency that responses lost points (punishment) was added to participants who had emitted more responses than the partner had, their response rates decreased while the rates of their partners increased. These results demonstrate that, under the contingency of mutual reinforcement: (a) response patterns that had occurred between monkeys were replicated between humans; (b) obtained response‐reinforcer relations were different from those generally programmed in the basic reinforcement schedules; and (c) the behavior of the participant was controlled by changing the behavior of the partner.     

Effects of pre-trial response requirements on self-control choices by rats and pigeons

Parallel experiments with rats and pigeons examined whether the size of a pre-trial ratio requirement would affect choices in a self-control situation. In different conditions, either 1 response or 40 responses were required before each trial. In the first half of each experiment, an adjusting-ratio schedule was used, in which subjects could choose a fixed-ratio schedule leading to a small reinforcer, or an adjusting-ratio schedule leading to a larger reinforcer. The size of the adjusting ratio requirement was increased and decreased over trials based on the subject's responses, in order to estimate an indifference point-a ratio at which the two alternatives were chosen about equally often. The second half of each experiment used an adjusting-delay procedure-fixed and adjusting delays to the small and large reinforcers were used instead of ratio requirements. In some conditions, particularly with the reinforcer delays, the rats had consistently longer adjusting delays with the larger pre-trial ratios, reflecting a greater tendency to choose the larger, delayed reinforcer when more responding was required to reach the choice point. No consistent effects of the pre-trial ratio were found for the pigeons in any of the conditions. These results may indicate that rats are more sensitive to the long-term reinforcement rates of the two alternatives, or they may result from a shallower temporal discounting rate for rats than for pigeons, a difference that has been observed in previous studies.     

RISKY CHOICE IN PIGEONS: PREFERENCE FOR AMOUNT VARIABILITY USING A TOKEN-REINFORCEMENT SYSTEM

Pigeons were given repeated choices between variable and fixed numbers of token reinforcers (stimulus lamps arrayed above the response keys), with each earned token exchangeable for food. The number of tokens provided by the fixed‐amount option remained constant within blocks of sessions, but varied parametrically across phases, assuming values of 2, 4, 6, or 8 tokens per choice. The number of tokens provided by the variable‐amount option varied between 0 and 12 tokens per choice, arranged according to an exponential or rectangular distribution. In general, the pigeons strongly preferred the variable option when the fixed option provided equal or greater numbers of tokens than the variable amount. Preference for the variable amount decreased only when the alternatives provided widely disparate amounts favoring the fixed amount. When tokens were removed from the experimental context, preference for the variable option was reduced or eliminated, suggesting that the token presentation played a key role in maintaining risk‐prone choice patterns. Choice latencies varied inversely with preferences, suggesting that local analyses may provide useful ancillary measures of reinforcer value. Overall, the results indicate that systematic risk sensitivity can be attained with respect to reinforcer amount, and that tokens may be critical in the development of such preferences.     

Preference for gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) in current users

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a drug with significant abuse potential. The present study aimed to assess the relative value of escalating doses of GHB to current GHB users via the Multiple Choice Procedure (MCP), and to validate that the dose rated highest with the MCP would be self-administered at a greater rate than placebo. Participants were 5 current GHB users who were not currently trying to stop using GHB. To examine the value of escalating doses of GHB, the following doses of GHB were used: 0 (placebo), 12.5, 25, 37.5, and 50 mg/kg. Participants typically assigned higher doses of GHB had higher crossover points on the MCP. During choice sessions, participants made repeated choices between administering GHB, placebo or nothing. All participants selected GHB exclusively (5 out of 5 instances) except for one participant who selected GHB on 4 out of 5 instances, thus 96% (i.e., 24/25) of choices were for active GHB. Based on these data, GHB appears likely to function as a dose-dependent reinforcer for humans based on our sample.