Asymmetry of the group context effect on delay discounting

Binary choice delay discounting tasks require participants to indicate preference between smaller, immediate, and larger, delayed rewards. Previous research indicates that when the delayed reward is shared with others, the delayed outcome is preferred compared with when the outcomes are for the self only, resulting in lower rates of delay discounting. The present series of studies sought to replicate and extend this finding. Study 1 compared delay discounting on a standard task in which both immediate and delayed outcomes are for the self and a group context task where the delayed outcome was shared with one other person. Replicating previous results, group context resulted in lower rates of delay discounting, and this effect was independent of how the shared outcome was presented. Study 2 compared delay discounting on a standard task and a group context task where the immediate outcome was shared. In contrast to Study 1, group context resulted in higher rates of delay discounting, suggesting that preference in intertemporal choice tracks the shared outcome. Moreover, this effect was not independent of how the shared outcome was presented. This is the first study to reveal that group context, when applied to the immediate outcome, can result in higher rates of delay discounting.     

Choice,Conditioned Reinforcement,and the Prius Effect

Psychologists have long been intrigued with the rationales that underlie our decisions. Similarly, the concept of conditioned reinforcement has a venerable history, particularly in accounting for behavior not obviously maintained by primary reinforcers. The studies of choice and of conditioned reinforcement have often developed in lockstep. Many contemporary approaches to these fundamental topics share an emphasis on context and on relative value. We trace the evolution of thinking about the potency of conditioned reinforcers from stimuli that were thought to acquire their value from pairings with more fundamental reinforcers to stimuli that acquire their value by being differentially correlated with these more fundamental reinforcers. We discuss some seminal experiments (including several that have been underappreciated) and some ongoing data, all of which have propelled us to the conclusion that the strength of conditioned reinforcers is determined by their signaling a relative improvement in the organism''s relation to reinforcement.     

Freeze or flee? Negative stimuli elicit selective responding

Humans preferentially attend to negative stimuli. A consequence of this automatic vigilance for negative valence is that negative words elicit slower responses than neutral or positive words on a host of cognitive tasks. Some researchers have speculated that negative stimuli elicit a general suppression of motor activity, akin to the freezing response exhibited by animals under threat. Alternatively, we suggest that negative stimuli only elicit slowed responding on tasks for which stimulus valence is irrelevant for responding. To discriminate between these motor suppression and response-relevance hypotheses, we elicited both lexical decisions and valence judgments of negative words and positive words. Relative to positive words (e.g., kitten), negative words (e.g., spider) elicited slower lexical decisions but faster valence judgments. Results therefore indicate that negative stimuli do not cause a generalized motor suppression. Rather, negative stimuli elicit selective responding, with faster responses on tasks for which stimulus valence is response-relevant.     

Fixed-time teacher attention to decrease off-task behaviors of typically developing third graders

Evidence to validate the use of fixed-time (FT) reinforcer delivery (i.e., noncontingent reinforcement) with typically developing populations has been relatively rare in the behavioral literature. In those studies that have provided validation, reinforcer delivery schedules appeared to be prohibitively dense for sustained implementation of procedures. This study demonstrated the efficacy of using FT reinforcer delivery to reduce off-task behavior of 2 typically developing third graders using a teacher-selected schedule (FT 4 min). Immediate reductions in off-task behavior were observed for both children. Challenges in identifying the operative mechanism of FT schedules in natural settings are discussed.     

Asymmetry of reinforcement and punishment in human choice

The hypothesis that a penny lost is valued more highly than a penny earned was tested in human choice. Five participants clicked a computer mouse under concurrent variable-interval schedules of monetary reinforcement. In the no-punishment condition, the schedules arranged monetary gain. In the punishment conditions, a schedule of monetary loss was superimposed on one response alternative. Deviations from generalized matching using the free parameters c (sensitivity to reinforcement) and log k (bias) were compared in the no-punishment and punishment conditions. The no-punishment conditions yielded values of log k that approximated zero for all participants, indicating no bias. In the punishment condition, values of log k deviated substantially from zero, revealing a 3-fold bias toward the unpunished alternative. Moreover, the c parameters were substantially smaller in punished conditions. The values for bias and sensitivity under punishment did not change significantly when the measure of net reinforcers (gains minus losses) was applied to the analysis. These results mean that punishment reduced the sensitivity of behavior to reinforcement and biased performance toward the unpunished alternative. We concluded that a single punisher subtracted more value than a single reinforcer added, indicating an asymmetry in the law of effect.     

The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior at zero, fifty, and one hundred

The experimental content areas represented in JEAB in its first volume (1958) and 50 years later in Volume 87 are in many ways similar with regard to research on schedules of reinforcement, research with human subjects, and several other topics. Experimental analysis has not been displaced by quantitative analysis. Much less research on aversive control has been published in recent than in earlier years. Wishes for progress in the next 50 years include experiments on verbal behavior, the sources of novel behavior, and observing responses based on stimuli correlated with escape or avoidance.     

Combinations of response-dependent and response-independent schedule-correlated stimulus presentation in an observing procedure

Pigeons pecked a response key on a variable-interval (VI) schedule, in which responses produced food every 40 s, on average. These VI periods, or components, alternated in irregular fashion with extinction components in which food was unavailable. Pecks on a second (observing) key briefly produced exteroceptive stimuli (houselight flashes) correlated with the component schedule currently in effect. Across conditions within a phase, the dependency between observing and presentation of the stimuli was decreased systematically while the density of stimulus presentation was held constant. Across phases, the proportion of session time spent in the VI component was adjusted from 0.5 to 0.25, and then to 0.75. Results indicate that rate of observing decreased as the dependency between responses and stimulus presentations was decreased. Further, discriminative control by the schedule-correlated stimuli was systematically weakened as dependency was decreased. Increasing the proportion of session time spent in VI decreased the rate of observing. This effect was additive with the manipulation of the dependency between observing and presentation of the stimuli. Overall, these results show that conditioned reinforcers function similarly to unconditioned reinforcers with respect to response-consequence dependencies, and that stimulus control is enhanced under conditions in which the relevant stimuli are produced by an organism's behavior.     

PREFERENCE FOR A STIMULUS THAT FOLLOWS A RELATIVELY AVERSIVE EVENT: CONTRAST OR DELAY REDUCTION?

Several types of contrast effects have been identified including incentive contrast, anticipatory contrast, and behavioral contrast. Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000) proposed a type of contrast that appears to be different from these others and called it within-trial contrast. In this form of contrast the relative value of a reinforcer depends on the events that occur immediately prior to the reinforcer. Reinforcers that follow relatively aversive events are preferred over those that follow less aversive events. In many cases the delay reduction hypothesis proposed by Fantino (1969) also can account for such effects. The current experiments provide a direct test of the delay reduction and contrast hypotheses by manipulating the schedule of reinforcement while holding trial duration constant. In Experiment 1, preference for fixed-interval (FI) versus differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedules of reinforcement was assessed. Some pigeons preferred one schedule over the other while others demonstrated a position (side) preference. Thus, no systematic preference was found. In Experiment 2, a simultaneous color discrimination followed the FI or DRO schedule, and following training, preference was assessed by presenting the two positive stimuli simultaneously. Consistent with the contrast hypothesis, pigeons showed a significant preference for the positive stimulus that in training had followed their less preferred schedule.     

Within-trial contrast: pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than a less aversive event

When behavior suggests that the value of a reinforcer depends inversely on the value of the events that precede or follow it, the behavior has been described as a contrast effect. Three major forms of contrast have been studied: incentive contrast, in which a downward (or upward) shift in the magnitude of reinforcement produces a relatively stronger downward (or upward) shift in the vigor of a response; anticipatory contrast, in which a forthcoming improvement in reinforcement results in a relative reduction in consummatory response; and behavioral contrast, in which a decrease in the probability of reinforcement in one component of a multiple schedule results in an increase in responding in an unchanged component of the schedule. Here we discuss a possible fourth kind of contrast that we call within-trial contrast because within a discrete trial, the relative value of an event has an inverse effect on the relative value of the reinforcer that follows. We show that greater effort, longer delay to reinforcement, or the absence of food all result in an increase in the preference for positive discriminative stimuli that follow (relative to less effort, shorter delay, or the presence of food). We further distinguish this within-trial contrast effect from the effects of delay reduction. A general model of this form of contrast is proposed in which the value of a primary or conditioned reinforcer depends on the change in value from the value of the event that precedes it.     

Choice in a successive-encounters procedure and hyperbolic decay of reinforcement

Pigeons responded in a successive-encounters procedure that consisted of a search state, a choice state, and a handling state. The search state was either a fixed-interval or mixed-interval schedule presented on the center key of a three-key chamber. Upon completion of the search state, the choice state was presented, in which the center key was off and the two side keys were lit. A pigeon could either accept a delay followed by food (by pecking the right key) or reject this option and return to the search state (by pecking the left key). During the choice state, a red right key represented the long alternative (a long handling delay followed by food), and a green right key represented the short alternative (a short handling delay followed by food). In some conditions, both the short and long alternatives were fixed-time schedules, and in other conditions both were mixed-time schedules. Contrary to the predictions of both optimal foraging theory and delay-reduction theory, the percentage of trials on which pigeons accepted the long alternative depended on whether the search and handling schedules were fixed or mixed. They were more likely to accept the long alternative when the search states were fixed-interval rather than mixed-interval schedules, and more likely to reject the long alternative when the handling states were fixed-time rather than mixed-time schedules. This pattern of results was in qualitative agreement with the predictions of the hyperbolic-decay model, which states that the value of a reinforcer is inversely related to the delay between a choice response and reinforcer delivery.