The effect of negative stimulus presentations on observing-response rates

Theories of observing differ in predicting whether or not a signal for absence of reinforcement (S−) is capable of reinforcing observing responses. Experiments in which S− was first removed from and then restored to the procedure have yielded mixed results. The present experiments suggest that failure to control for the direct effect of presenting S− may have been responsible. Pigeons and operant procedures were used. Experiment 1 showed that presentations of S−, even when not contingent on observing, can raise the rate of an observing response that was reinforced only by presentations of a signal (S+) that accompanied a schedule of food delivery. Experiment 2 showed that this effect resulted from bursts of responding that followed offsets of S−. Experiment 3 showed that, when the presence of S− was held constant, lower rates occurred when S− was dependent on, rather than independent of, observing. These results support theories that characterize S− as incapable of reinforcing observing responses.     

A development of Freudian metapsychology for schizophrenia

The author states that psychoanalysis has much to contribute to schizophrenia. Beginning with a development of Freudian metapsychology, he addresses the in‐depth psychopathological study of a session (the first on the couch) with a schizophrenic patient who hears voices and feels that he is being watched. Since the symptoms appear at the level of the heard word and the visual image – key to Freudian metapsychology – he delineates a circuit for the word and one for the image, describing a blockage in both and the consequences of these. Furthermore, with regard to the patient's progress, he demonstrates first a quantitative improvement in symptoms, and later qualitative changes in his functioning. He shows how, over a time, functioning is improved in a once‐a‐week on‐the‐couch setting after two years of face‐to‐face treatment.     

Concurrent second-order schedules of reinforcement

Responses on one key (the main key) of a two-key chamber produced food according to a second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval schedule components. A response on a second key (the changeover key) alternated colors on the main key and provided a second independent second-order variable-interval schedule with fixed-interval components. The fixed-interval component on one variable-interval schedule was held constant at 8 sec, while the fixed interval on the other variable-interval schedule was varied from 0 to 32 sec. Under some conditions, a brief stimulus terminated each fixed interval and generated fixed-interval patterns; in other conditions, the brief stimulus was omitted. Relative response rate and relative time deviated substantially from scheduled relative reinforcement rate and, to a lesser extent, from obtained relative reinforcement rate under both brief-stimulus and no-stimulus conditions. Matching was observed with equal components on both schedules; with unequal components, increasingly greater proportions of time and responses than the matching relation would predict were spent on the variable-interval schedule containing the shorter component. Preference for the shorter fixed interval was typically more extreme under brief-stimulus than under no-stimulus schedules. The results limit the extension of the matching relation typically observed under simple concurrent variable-interval schedules to concurrent second-order variable-interval schedules.     

Separating the reinforcing and discriminative properties of brief-stimulus presentations in second-order schedules.

Pigeons' responses were maintained under multiple schedules to study properties of briefly presented stimuli. Responses in one component produced food according to a second-order schedule with fixed-interval components in which food or a brief stimulus occurred with equal probability. In the second component responses produced only the brief stimulus under a fixed-ratio schedule. Under various conditions the brief stimulus in the first component was (a) paired with food, (b) not paired with food, (c) partially omitted, or (d) scheduled simultaneously with the second-order schedule under an independent variable-interval schedule. Paired and nonpaired brief stimuli maintained similar response patterning in the second-order schedule. However, only paired stimuli maintained responses in the second component. The data suggest that nonpaired brief stimuli engender response patterning in second-order schedules as a result of their discriminative properties. When the stimulus is paired with food, these discriminative properties sometime mask a reinforcement effect, and no change in response patterning is observed. When the discriminative properties of the brief stimulus are absent, the reinforcing effects of pairing the brief stimulus with food may be observed.     

Second-order schedules with paired auditory brief stimuli

Pigeons were exposed to multiple second-order schedules of paired and unpaired brief stimuli in which responding on the main key was reinforced according to a fixed-interval thirty-second schedule by a brief stimulus (a tone in the paired schedule) and advancement to the next segment of the second-order schedule. In Experiment 1, a response on the second key was required during the tone in its fourth and final presentation to produce food. Responses during earlier brief stimuli indicated the extent to which the final brief stimulus was discriminated from preceding ones. Responding was comparable during all tones, extending prior findings with visual paired brief stimuli and weakening explanations of subjects' failure to discriminate between brief-stimulus presentations in terms of elicited responding. In Experiment 2 the number of fixed-interval segments comprising the second-order schedules varied from one through eight. Although main-key response rates increased across segments in both experiments, they increased much less sharply with a variable number of segments. These results suggest that the increase in main-key response rates across segments is due primarily to a degree of temporal discrimination not reflected on the second key. Main-key response rates were higher on paired auditory brief-stimulus schedules than on unpaired visual brief-stimulus schedules, especially in Experiment 2, thus further extending findings with visual brief stimuli to second-order schedules with auditory brief stimuli.     

Trends in presentations at the annual conference of the association for behavior analysis

The present report analyzes trends in attendance and presentations at the annual conference of the Association for Behavior Analysis (ABA). Numbers of registered attendees were plotted over time. The trends show that the number of registered attendees has grown considerably over the last three decades, with the largest proportion of the growth occurring during the last 10 years. This growth is shown to be correlated with the introduction of board certification in behavior analysis (BCBA and BCABA). In addition, conference programs from 1980 through 2007 were coded, and all presentations were categorized into one of four areas (application, basic research, conceptual, and verbal behavior) based on the primary designator codes chosen by the authors at the time of submission. An analysis of the total number of presentations in each category indicates that applied research presentations have always outnumbered the other three categories. The absolute number of presentations related to application has grown faster than presentations in other categories. However, correcting for population growth shows that the relative proportion of presentations in the four areas has remained fairly constant over the last 28 years.     

On teaching psychoanalysis

Teaching psychoanalysis is no less an art than is the practice of psychoanalysis. As is true of the analytic experience, teaching psychoanalysis involves an effort to create clearances in which fresh forms of thinking and dreaming may emerge, with regard to both psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice. Drawing on his experience of leading two ongoing psychoanalytic seminars, each in its 25th year, the author offers observations concerning (1) teaching analytic texts by reading them aloud, line by line, in the seminar setting, with a focus on how the writer is thinking/writing and on how the reader is altered by the experience of reading; (2) treating clinical case presentations as experiences in collective dreaming in which the seminar members make use of their own waking dreaming to assist the presenter in dreaming aspects of his experience with the patient that the analytic pair has not previously been able to dream; (3) reading poetry and fi ction as a way of enhancing the capacity of the seminar members to be aware of and alive to the effects created by the patient's and the analyst's use of language; and (4) learning to overcome what one thought one knew about conducting analytic work, i.e. learning to forget what one has learned.     

Second-order schedules: discrimination of components

Pigeons were exposed to a series of second-order schedules in which the completion of a fixed number of fixed-interval components produced food. In Experiment 1, brief (2 sec) stimulus presentations occurred as each fixed-interval component was completed. During the brief-stimulus presentation terminating the last fixed-interval component, a response was required on a second key, the brief-stimulus key, to produce food. Responses on the brief-stimulus key before the last brief-stimulus presentation had no scheduled consequences, but served as a measure of the extent to which the final component was discriminated from preceding components. Whether there were one, two, four, or eight fixed-interval components, responses on the brief-stimulus key occurred during virtually every brief-stimulus presentation. In Experiment 2, an attempt was made to punish unnecessary responses on the brief-stimulus key, i.e., responses on the brief-stimulus key that occurred before the last component. None of the pigeons learned to withhold these responses, even though they produced a 15-sec timeout and loss of primary reinforcement. In Experiment 3, different key colors were associated with each component of a second-order schedule (a chain schedule). In contrast to Experiment 1, brief-stimulus key responses were confined to the last component. It was concluded that pigeons do not discriminate well between components of second-order schedules unless a unique exteroceptive cue is provided for each component. The relative discriminability of the components may account for the observed differences in initial-component response rates between comparable brief-stimulus, tandem, and chain schedules.     

Conditioned reinforcement and discrimination in second-order schedules

Pigeons were exposed to multiple second-order schedules in which responding on the “main key” was reinforced according to either a variable-interval or fixed-interval schedule by production of a brief stimulus on the “brief-stimulus key”. A response was required to the brief stimulus during its fourth (final) presentation to produce food; responses to the earlier brief stimuli indicated the extent to which the final brief stimulus was discriminated from preceding ones. Main-key response rates were higher in early components of paired brief-stimulus schedules, in which each brief stimulus was the same as that paired with reinforcement, than in comparable unpaired brief-stimulus or tandem schedules. Poor discrimination occurred between paired brief stimuli (Experiment I). When chain stimuli on the main key induced a discrimination between the first two and second two brief stimuli, the response-rate enhancement in the paired brief-stimulus schedule persisted (Experiment II). Rate enhancement diminished when the initial link of the chain included the first three components (Experiment IV). Eliminating the contingency between responding and brief-stimulus production also diminished rate enhancement (Experiment III). The results show that the discriminative and conditioned reinforcing effects of food-paired brief stimuli may be selectively manipulated and suggest that the reinforcing effects are modulated by other reinforcers in the situation.