EFFECTS OF POINT‐LOSS PUNISHERS ON HUMAN SIGNAL‐DETECTION PERFORMANCE

Three experiments using human participants varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers or point‐loss punishers in two‐alternative signal‐detection procedures. Experiment 1 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses (Group A) and point‐loss punishers for errors (Group B) across conditions. Response bias varied systematically as a function of the relative reinforcer or punisher frequencies. Experiment 2 arranged two conditions — one where an unequal ratio of reinforcement (5:1 or 1:5) was presented without punishment (R‐only), and another where the same reinforcer ratio was presented with an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers (R+P). Response bias was significantly greater in the R‐only condition than the R+P condition, supporting a subtractive model of punishment. Experiment 3 varied the distribution of point‐gain reinforcers for correct responses across four unequal reinforcer ratios (5:1, 2:1, 1:2, 1:5) both without (R‐only) and with (R+P) an equal distribution of point‐loss punishers for errors. Response bias varied systematically with changes in relative reinforcer frequency for both R‐only and R+P conditions, with 5 out of 8 participants showing increases in sensitivity estimates from R‐only to R+P conditions. Overall, the results indicated that punishers have similar but opposite effects to reinforcers in detection procedures and that combined reinforcer and punisher effects might be better modeled by a subtractive punishment model than an additive punishment model, consistent with research using concurrent‐schedule choice procedures.