Some determinants of remote behavioral history effects in humans

Undergraduates were exposed to a series of reinforcement schedules: first, to a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule in the presence of one stimulus and to a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule in the presence of another (multiple FR DRL training), then to a fixed-interval (FI) schedule in the presence of a third stimulus (FI baseline), next to the FI schedule under the stimuli previously correlated with the FR and DRL schedules (multiple FI FI testing), and, finally, to a single session of the multiple FR DRL schedule again (multiple FR DRL testing). Response rates during the multiple FI FI schedule were higher under the former FR stimulus than under the former DRL stimulus. This effect of remote histories was prolonged when either the number of FI-baseline sessions was small or zero, or the time interval between the multiple FR DRL training and the multiple FI FI testing was short. Response rates under these two stimuli converged with continued exposure to the multiple FI FI schedule in most cases, but quickly differentiated when the schedule returned to the multiple FR DRL.     

The Behavior of Controllers

The Psychological Record - The present experiment demonstrated a procedure analyzing the behavior of controllers by measuring undergraduates’ responses that produced consequences to other...     

An Experimental Analysis of Another Privacy

The Psychological Record - The present article discusses how events outside a subject’s skin and not accessible to another subject but to an experimenter may contribute to experimental...     

Is the “hot‐hands” phenomenon a misperception of random events?

T. Gilovich, R. Vallone, and A. Tversky (1985) asked whether the so-called hot-hands phenomenon – a temporary elevation of the probability of successful shots – actually exists in basketball. They concluded that hot-hands are misperceived random events. This paper re-examines the truth of their conclusion. The present study's main concern was the sensitivity of the statistical tests used in Gilovich et al.'s research. Simulated records of shots over a season were used. These represented many different situations and players, but they always contained at least one hot-hand period. The issue was whether Gilovich et al.'s tests were sensitive enough to detect the hot-hands embedded in the records. The study found that this sensitivity depends on the frequency of hot-hand periods, the total number of shots in all hot-hand periods, the number of shots in each hot-hand period, and the size of the increase in the probability of successful shots in hot-hand periods. However, when the values of those variables were set realistically, on average the tests could detect only about 12% of the hot-hands phenomena.     

A study of antecedents of organizational commitment

Various theories of organizational behaviors suggest that there should be significant relationships between the work-related variables and commitment to an organization. This study shows that, for a sample of 203 Japanese industrial workers, four components (attachment, internalization, normative, and continuance) of organizational commitment are predicted by organizational climate, supervisory behavior, organizational tenure, and role clarity. Implications for future research are discussed.     

Emergence of response‐response relations

The present study examined whether bidirectional response‐response relations could be established without direct reinforcement. In AB training for 12 undergraduates, higher rates of touches to a white circle on the monitor screen (A1) produced two stimuli (B1 and B2) on half of the trials, whereas lower rates (A2) produced the same effect on the other half. Choosing one of the two stimuli was reinforced according to the preceding responding (A1B1 and A2B2). In BC training, touching a stimulus (B1 or B2) produced three white circles lined up horizontally on the screen, after which one of two different response sequences to the circles (left‐center‐right, C1 or C2, and right‐center‐left, C2 or C1) were reinforced, depending on the stimulus presented (B1C1 and B2C2). After AB and BC relations were established, 11 of 12 participants showed the emergence of untrained relations (BA, CB, AC, and CA) throughout five test sessions, and the remaining participant showed it in the first four test sessions. These response‐response relations were replicated with five other undergraduates and different trained relations.     

RESPONSE ACQUISITION BY HUMANS WITH DELAYED REINFORCEMENT

The present experiment examined whether a response class was acquired by humans with delayed reinforcement. Eight white circles were presented on a computer touch screen. If the undergraduates touched two of the eight circles in a specified sequence (i.e., touching first the upper‐left circle then the bottom‐left circle), then the touches initiated an unsignaled resetting delay culminating in point delivery. Participants experienced one of three different delays (0 s, 10 s, or 30 s). Rates of the target two‐response sequence were higher with delayed reinforcement than with no reinforcement. Terminal rates of the target sequence decreased and postreinforcement pauses increased as a function of delay duration. Other undergraduates exposed to yoked schedules of response‐independent point deliveries failed to acquire the sequence. The results demonstrate that a response class was acquired with delayed reinforcement, extending the generality of this phenomenon found with nonhuman animals to humans.     

Instructions as discriminative stimuli (2): A within‐subject examination of the effect of differential reinforcement on establishing novel instructional control1

Abstract: Six undergraduates were exposed to a fixed‐ratio schedule with an instruction to respond slowly and to a differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate schedule with an instruction to respond rapidly when a white circle was presented on a display monitor. When a yellow circle was presented, however, the subjects were exposed to the fixed‐ratio schedule with the instruction to respond rapidly and to the differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate schedule with the instruction to respond slowly. Following this, a fixed‐interval schedule was in effect during those stimuli and instructions. Under the white circle, response rates were higher with the instruction to respond slowly than with the instruction to respond rapidly during the fixed‐interval schedule. Such control by instructions was not observed under the yellow circle. A previous study examined establishment of novel instructional control by between‐subject comparisons and found that for three of four subjects ( Okouchi, 1999 ). In contrast, the present results demonstrate the instructional control through within‐subject comparisons for all six subjects.