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...     

Instructions as discriminative stimuli

Four undergraduates were exposed to a fixed-ratio schedule under an instruction to respond slowly and to a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 5-s schedule under an instruction to respond rapidly. Following this, a fixed-interval schedule was in effect under those same two sets of instructions. For 3 of 4 subjects, response rates were higher with the instruction to respond slowly than with the instruction to respond rapidly during the fixed-interval schedule. For the remaining subject, low-rate responding with the instruction to respond rapidly continued during the first 17 reinforcements of the fixed-interval schedule. Such control by instructions was not observed for other subjects exposed only to a fixed-interval schedule, with or without instructions. The results demonstrate that the effect of instructions can be altered by contingencies and suggest that instructions can function as discriminative stimuli.     

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.     

Individual Differences in Human Fixed-Interval Performance

The Psychological Record - Thirty-two undergraduates were exposed to a fixed-interval 60-s schedule. There were extreme individual differences in postreinforcement pauses and response rates. Such...     

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.     

Reformative self‐control and discounting of reward value by delay or effort1

Abstract: The relation between reformative self‐control and discounting of reward value by delay or effort was examined. Thirty‐two Japanese undergraduates were selected based on their scores on a standardized pencil and paper test of self‐control, the Redressive–Reformative Self‐Control Scale ( Sugiwaka, 1995 ). The subjects indicated their preference (i) between a hypothetical 100 000 yen reward available with various delays and a certain reward of variable amount available immediately; or (ii) between a hypothetical 100 000 yen reward available with various efforts and a certain reward of variable amount available without effort. The discounting of delayed reward value was described well by a hyperbolic function proposed by Mazur (1987 ). The slopes of the delayed discounting curves were steeper for subjects who scored low on the Reformative Self‐Control Scale, which is a measure of reformative self‐control and a subscale of the Redressive–Reformative Self‐Control Scale. The discounting by effort was also described well by the hyperbolic function. The slopes of the effortful discounting curves did not correlate to those of the delayed discounting curves. The slopes were not systematically different across the groups of subjects with different scores on the reformative self‐control scale.