Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli

Contingengy-specifying stimuli (CSSs) can function differently than discriminative stimuli. Rather than evoking behavior due to a history of discrimination training, they alter the function of other stimuli and, therefore, the behavioral relations involving those stimuli. CSSs can alter the evocative function of discriminative stimuli, establishing operations, and conditional stimuli, as well as the efficacy of reinforcing and punishing stimuli and of stimuli that can function in second-order respondent conditioning. The concept of function-altering CSSs has implications for such areas of interest as stimulus equivalence, the terminology involving "rules" and "rule-governed behavior," and the way in which behavior analysts view the effects of such basic processes as reinforcement and punishment.     

A Functional Analysis of Psychological Terms Redux

In his seminal paper, “An Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms,” Skinner (1945) offered the revolutionary suggestion that, rather than endlessly debating the meanings of psychological terms, psychologists should analyze the variables that control their occurrence as verbal behavior. Skinner''s suggestion reflected the essence of his 1957 book, Verbal Behavior, wherein he argued that the behaviors of which language is composed (i.e., speaking and listening) are controlled by variables found in the social environment (which he called the verbal community), and that analyzing those variables would lead to an understanding of the behaviors. Although Skinner formally introduced his radical approach to language in 1945, it has yet to be fully realized. The result is that psychologists, including behavior analysts, still debate the definitions of terms. In the present paper, I review Skinner''s functional approach to language and describe ways in which behavior analysts have already applied it to traditional psychological terms. I conclude by looking at other current terms in behavior analysis that engender some confusion and encourage behavior analysts to apply a functional analytic approach to their own verbal behavior.     

SKINNER AS MISSIONARY AND PROPHET: A REVIEW OF BURRHUS F. SKINNER: SHAPER OF BEHAVIOUR

Do we need another book about B. F. Skinner? According to Frederick Toates, the answer is “yes” because “there is still much to be said” (p. vii) about Skinner. In his recent biography, Burrhus F. Skinner: Shaper of Behaviour (2009), Toates attempts to integrate Skinner into the mainstream of psychology by showing areas of commonality between Skinner''s radical behaviorism and subdisciplines within psychology such as cognitive, social, and biological psychology. Admirably, although in some instances understandably naively, Toates attempts to demonstrate the power of positive reinforcement to explain myriad complex behaviors, including a fairly lengthy interpretation of religious behavior. In addition, Toates credits Skinner for being ahead of his time on both social and environmental issues. Toates falters, however, in his insistence that behavior analysis still needs and can benefit from cognitive concepts. He nevertheless provides an otherwise objective and sympathetic view of Skinner the person and the behavioral science he helped to create in a book that should be informative for both behavior analysts and those outside the field.     

What 50 years of research tell us about pausing under ratio schedules of reinforcement

Textbooks in learning and behavior commonly describe performance on fixed-ratio schedules as “break and run,” indicating that after reinforcement subjects typically pause and then respond quickly to the next reinforcement. Performance on variable-ratio schedules, on the other hand, is described as steady and fast, with few long pauses. Beginning with Ferster and Skinner''s magnum opus, Schedules of Reinforcement (1957), the literature on pausing under ratio schedules has identified the influences on pausing of numerous important variables, in particular ratio size and reinforcement magnitude. As a result, some previously held assumptions have been called into question. For example, research has shown that the length of the pause is controlled not only by the preceding ratio, as Ferster and Skinner and others had assumed (and as implied by the phrase postreinforcement pause), but by the upcoming ratio as well. Similarly, despite the commonly held belief that ratio pausing is unique to the fixed-ratio schedule, there is evidence that pausing also occurs under variable-ratio schedules. If such widely held beliefs are incorrect, then what about other assumptions? This article selectively examines the literature on pausing under ratio schedules over the past 50 years and concludes that although there may indeed be some common patterns, there are also inconsistencies that await future resolution. Several accounts of pausing under ratio schedules are discussed along with the implications of the literature for human performances, most notably the behaviors termed procrastination.     

Pausing under variable-ratio schedules: Interaction of reinforcer magnitude, variable-ratio size, and lowest ratio

Pigeons pecked a key under two-component multiple variable-ratio schedules that offered 8-s or 2-s access to grain. Postreinforcement pausing and the rates of responding following the pause (run rates) in each component were measured as a function of variable-ratio size and the size of the lowest ratio in the configuration of ratios comprising each schedule. In one group of subjects, variable-ratio size was varied while the size of the lowest ratio was held constant. In a second group, the size of the lowest ratio was varied while variable-ratio size was held constant. For all subjects, the mean duration of postreinforcement pausing increased in the 2-s component but not in the 8-s component. Postreinforcement pauses increased with increases in variable-ratio size (Group 1) and with increases in the lowest ratio (Group 2). In both groups, run rates were slightly higher in the 8-s component than in the 2-s component. Run rates decreased slightly as variable-ratio size increased, but were unaffected by increases in the size of the lowest ratio. These results suggest that variable-ratio size, the size of the lowest ratio, and reinforcer magnitude interact to determine the duration of postreinforcement pauses.     

Determinants of pausing under variable-ratio schedules: Reinforcer magnitude, ratio size, and schedule configuration

Pigeons pecked a key under two-component multiple variable-ratio schedules that offered 8-s or 2-s access to grain. Phase 1 assessed the effects of differences in reinforcer magnitude on postreinforcement pausing, as a function of ratio size. In Phase 2, postreinforcement pausing and the first five interresponse times in each ratio were measured as a function of differences in reinforcer magnitude under equal variable-ratio schedules consisting of different configurations of individual ratios. Rates were also calculated exclusive of postreinforcement pause times in both phases. The results from Phase 1 showed that as ratio size increased, the differences in pausing educed by unequal reinforcer magnitudes also increased. The results of Phase 2 showed that the effects of reinforcer magnitude on pausing and IRT durations were a function of schedule configuration. Under one configuration, in which the smallest ratio was a fixed-ratio 1, pauses were unaffected by magnitude but the first five interresponse times were affected. Under the other configuration, in which the smallest ratio was a fixed-ratio 7, pauses were affected by reinforcer magnitude but the first five interresponse times were not. The effect of each configuration seemed to be determined by the value of the smallest individual ratio. Rates calculated exclusive of postreinforcement pause times were, in general, directly related to reinforcer magnitude, and the relation was shown to be a function of schedule configuration.     

Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli

Behavior analysts have traditionally defined rules as discriminative stimuli. Three problems with this interpretation are discussed. First, because the effects of rules are often delayed, and the effects of discriminative stimuli are immediate, classifying rules as discriminative stimuli violates the definitional requirements of the latter. Second, when rules are defined as discriminative stimuli, other truly unique effects of rules may be obscured. Finally, both rules and contingencies develop new behavioral relations; however, when rules are interpreted as discriminative stimuli, their effects are not readily compared with those of contingencies. As an alternative, we suggest that rules be interpreted as function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. Implications of this function-altering interpretation for terminology and research strategy are discussed.