This investigation compared the predictions of two models describing the integration of reinforcement and punishment effects in operant choice. Deluty's (1976) competitive-suppression model (conceptually related to two-factor punishment theories) and de Villiers' (1980) direct-suppression model (conceptually related to one-factor punishment theories) have been tested previously in nonhumans but not at the individual level in humans. Mouse clicking by college students was maintained in a two-alternative concurrent schedule of variable-interval money reinforcement. Punishment consisted of variable-interval money losses. Experiment 1 verified that money loss was an effective punisher in this context. Experiment 2 consisted of qualitative model comparisons similar to those used in previous studies involving nonhumans. Following a no-punishment baseline, punishment was superimposed upon both response alternatives. Under schedule values for which the direct-suppression model, but not the competitive-suppression model, predicted distinct shifts from baseline performance, or vice versa, 12 of 14 individual-subject functions, generated by 7 subjects, supported the direct-suppression model. When the punishment models were converted to the form of the generalized matching law, least-squares linear regression fits for a direct-suppression model were superior to those of a competitive-suppression model for 6 of 7 subjects. In Experiment 3, a more thorough quantitative test of the modified models, fits for a direct-suppression model were superior in 11 of 13 cases. These results correspond well to those of investigations conducted with nonhumans and provide the first individual-subject evidence that a direct-suppression model, evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively, describes human punishment better than a competitive-suppression model. We discuss implications for developing better punishment models and future investigations of punishment in human choice.

The effects of conjugate reinforcement on the responding of 13 college students were examined in three experiments. Conjugate reinforcement was provided via key presses that changed the clarity of pictures displayed on a computer monitor in a manner proportional to the rate of responding. Experiment 1, which included seven parameters of clarity change per response, revealed that responding decreased as the percentage clarity per response increased for all five participants. These results indicate that each participant's responding was sensitive to intensity change, which is a parameter of conjugate reinforcement schedules. Experiment 2 showed that responding increased during conjugate reinforcement phases and decreased during extinction phases for all four participants. Experiment 3 also showed that responding increased during conjugate reinforcement and further showed that responding decreased during a conjugate negative punishment condition for another four participants. Directions for future research with conjugate schedules are briefly discussed.