Conditioned reinforcement of human observing behavior by descriptive and arbitrary verbal stimuli

An evaluation of methods for studying the effects of conditioned reinforcement on human choice

Shahan et al. (2006) found that the relative rate of pigeons' pecking on two observing responses (i.e., responses that only produced an S+ or stimulus correlated with primary reinforcement) was well described by the relative rate of S+ delivery. Researchers have not evaluated the effects of S+ delivery rate in a concurrent observing response procedure with human subjects, so the necessary procedural modifications for studying the effects of conditioned reinforcement on human choice remain unclear. The purpose of the current study was to conduct an additive component analysis of modifications to the procedures of Shahan et al. (2006). We evaluated the additive effects of introducing response cost, a changeover response, and ordinal discriminative stimuli on correspondence with the results of Shahan et al. and the quality of fits of the generalized matching equation. When our procedures were most similar to those of Shahan et al., we observed low rates of observing and indifference between the two observing responses. For the group of subjects with whom all three additive components were included, we obtained the highest level of sensitivity to relative rate of S+ delivery, but the slope and R² of our fits of the generalized matching equation were still much lower than those obtained by Shahan et al. Potential reasons for these discrepancies, methods of resolving them, and implications for future research are discussed.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Replication Failures

Worries about the reproducibility of experiments in the behavioral and social sciences arise from evidence that many published reports contain false positive results. Misunderstanding and misuse of statistical procedures are key sources of false positives. In behavior analysis, however, statistical procedures have not been used much. Instead, the investigator must show that the behavior of an individual is consistent over time within an experimental condition, that the behavior changes systematically across conditions, and that these changes can be reproduced - and then the whole pattern must be shown in additional individuals. These high standards of within- and between-subject replication protect behavior analysis from the publication of false positive findings. When a properly designed and executed experiment fails to replicate a previously published finding, the failure exposes flaws in our understanding of the phenomenon under study - perhaps in recognizing the boundary conditions of the phenomenon, identifying the relevant variables, or bringing the variables under sufficient control. We must accept the contradictory findings as valid and pursue an experimental analysis of the possible reasons. In this way, we resolve the contradiction and advance our science. To illustrate, two research programs are described, each initiated because of a replication failure.

Revisiting the role of bad news in maintaining human observing behavior

Results from studies of observing responses have suggested that stimuli maintain observing owing to their special relationship to primary reinforcement (the conditioned-reinforcement hypothesis), and not because they predict the availability and nonavailability of reinforcement (the information hypothesis). The present article first reviews a study that challenges that conclusion and then reports a series of five brief experiments that provide further support for the conditioned-reinforcement view. In Experiments 1 through 3, participants preferred occasional good news (a stimulus correlated with reinforcement) or no news (a stimulus uncorrelated with reinforcement) to occasional bad news (a stimulus negatively correlated with reinforcement). In Experiment 4 bad news was preferred to no news when the absence of stimulus change following a response to the bad-news option was reliably associated with good news. When this association was weakened in Experiment 5 the results were intermediate. The results support the conclusion that information is reinforcing only when it is positive or useful. As required by the conditioned-reinforcement hypothesis, useless information does not maintain observing.

Observing responses and serial stimuli: searching for the reinforcing properties of the S-

The control exerted by a stimulus associated with an extinction component (S-) on observing responses was determined as a function of its temporal relation with the onset of the reinforcement component. Lever pressing by rats was reinforced on a mixed random-interval extinction schedule. Each press on a second lever produced stimuli associated with the component of the schedule in effect. In Experiment 1 a response-dependent clock procedure that incorporated different stimuli associated with an extinction component of a variable duration was used. When a single S- was presented throughout the extinction component, the rate of observing remained relatively constant across this component. In the response-dependent clock procedure, observing responses increased from the beginning to the end of the extinction component. This result was replicated in Experiment 2, using a similar clock procedure but keeping the number of stimuli per extinction component constant. We conclude that the S- can function as a conditioned reinforcer, a neutral stimulus or as an aversive stimulus, depending on its temporal location within the extinction component.

Conditioned reinforcement and response strength

Stimuli associated with primary reinforcers appear themselves to acquire the capacity to strengthen behavior. This paper reviews research on the strengthening effects of conditioned reinforcers within the context of contemporary quantitative choice theories and behavioral momentum theory. Based partially on the finding that variations in parameters of conditioned reinforcement appear not to affect response strength as measured by resistance to change, long-standing assertions that conditioned reinforcers do not strengthen behavior in a reinforcement-like fashion are considered. A signposts or means-to-an-end account is explored and appears to provide a plausible alternative interpretation of the effects of stimuli associated with primary reinforcers. Related suggestions that primary reinforcers also might not have their effects via a strengthening process are explored and found to be worthy of serious consideration.