| Abstract: | Two experiments investigated the effect of observing responses that enabled college students to emit more efficient distributions of reinforced responses. In Experiment 1, the gains of response efficiency enabled by observing were minimized through use of identical low-effort response requirements in two alternating variable-interval schedules. These comprised a mixed schedule of reinforcement; they differed in the number of money-backed points per reinforcer. In each of three choices between two stimuli that varied in their correlation with the variable-interval schedules, the results showed that subjects preferred stimuli that were correlated with the larger average amount of reinforcement. This is consistent with a conditioned-reinforcement hypothesis. Negative informative stimuli--that is, stimuli correlated with the smaller of two rewards--did not maintain as much observing as stimuli that were uncorrelated with amount of reward. In Experiment 2, savings in effort made possible by producing S- were varied within subjects by alternately removing and reinstating the response-reinforcement contingency in a mixed variable-interval/extinction schedule of reinforcement. Preference for an uncorrelated stimulus compared to a negative informative stimulus (S-) decreased for each of six subjects, and usually reversed when observing permitted a more efficient temporal distribution of the responses required for reinforcement; in this case, the responses were pulls on a relatively high-effort plunger. When observing the S- could not improve response efficiency, subjects again chose the control stimulus. All of these results were inconsistent with the uncertainty-reduction hypothesis. |
