Pigeons responded on fixed-ratio schedules ending in small or large reinforcers (grain presentations of different duration) interspersed within each session. In mixed-schedule conditions, the response key was lit with a single color throughout the session, and pausing was directly related to the past reinforcer (longer pauses after large reinforcers than after small ones). In multiple-schedule conditions, different colors accompanied the ratios ending in small and large reinforcers, and pausing was affected by the upcoming reinforcer as well as the past one. Pauses were shorter before large reinforcers than before small ones, but they continued to be longer after large reinforcers than after small ones. The influence of the past reinforcer was modulated by the magnitude of the upcoming reinforcer; in the presence of the stimulus before the small reinforcer, the effect of the past reinforcer was enhanced relative to its effect in the stimulus before the large reinforcer. These results show that pausing between ratios is jointly determined by two competing factors: past conditions of reinforcement and stimuli correlated with upcoming conditions.

Procedures classified as positive reinforcement are generally regarded as more desirable than those classified as aversive-those that involve negative reinforcement or punishment. This is a crude test of the desirability of a procedure to change or maintain behavior. The problems can be identified on the basis of theory, experimental analysis, and consideration of practical cases. Theoretically, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement has proven difficult (some would say the distinction is untenable). When the distinction is made purely in operational terms, experiments reveal that positive reinforcement has aversive functions. On a practical level, positive reinforcement can lead to deleterious effects, and it is implicated in a range of personal and societal problems. These issues challenge us to identify other criteria for judging behavioral procedures.

Young men pulled a plunger on mixed and multiple schedules in which periods of variable-interval monetary reinforcement alternated irregularly with periods of extinction (Experiment 1), or in which reinforcement was contingent on different degrees of effort in the two alternating components (Experiment 2). In the baseline conditions, the pair of stimuli correlated with the schedule components could be obtained intermittently by pressing either of two observing keys. In the main conditions, pressing one of the keys continued to produce both discriminative stimuli as appropriate. Pressing the other key produced only the stimulus correlated with variable-interval reinforcement or reduced effort; presses on this key were ineffective during periods of extinction or increased effort. In both experiments, key presses producing both stimuli occurred at higher rates than key presses producing only one, demonstrating enhancement of observing behavior by a stimulus correlated with the less favorable of two contingencies. A control experiment showed that stimulus change alone was not an important factor in the maintenance of the behavior. These findings suggest that negative as well as positive stimuli may play a role in the conditioned reinforcement of human behavior.

We conducted three experiments to reproduce and extend Perone and Courtney's (1992) study of pausing at the beginning of fixed-ratio schedules. In a multiple schedule with unequal amounts of food across two components, they found that pigeons paused longest in the component associated with the smaller amount of food (the lean component), but only when it was preceded by the rich component. In our studies, adults with mild intellectual disabilities responded on a touch-sensitive computer monitor to produce money. In Experiment 1, the multiple-schedule components differed in both response requirement and reinforcer magnitude (i.e., the rich component required fewer responses and produced more money than the lean component). Effects shown with pigeons were reproduced in all 7 participants. In Experiment 2, we removed the stimuli that signaled the two schedule components, and participants' extended pausing was eliminated. In Experiment 3, to assess sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude versus fixed-ratio size, we presented conditions with equal ratio sizes but disparate magnitudes and conditions with equal magnitudes but disparate ratio sizes. Sensitivity to these manipulations was idiosyncratic. The present experiments obtained schedule control in verbally competent human participants and, despite procedural differences, we reproduced findings with animal participants. We showed that pausing is jointly determined by past conditions of reinforcement and stimuli correlated with upcoming conditions.

Statistical inference promises automatic, objective, reliable assessments of data, independent of the skills or biases of the investigator, whereas the single-subject methods favored by behavior analysts often are said to rely too much on the investigator's subjective impressions, particularly in the visual analysis of data. In fact, conventional statistical methods are difficult to apply correctly, even by experts, and the underlying logic of null-hypothesis testing has drawn criticism since its inception. By comparison, single-subject methods foster direct, continuous interaction between investigator and subject and development of strong forms of experimental control that obviate the need for statistical inference. Treatment effects are demonstrated in experimental designs that incorporate replication within and between subjects, and the visual analysis of data is adequate when integrated into such designs. Thus, single-subject methods are ideal for shaping-and maintaining-the kind of experimental practices that will ensure the continued success of behavior analysis.

Undergraduates participated in two experiments to develop methods for the experimental analysis of self-reports about behavior. The target behavior was the choice response in a delayed-matching-to-sample task in which monetary reinforcement was contingent upon both speed and accuracy of the choice. In Experiment 1, the temporal portion of the contingency was manipulated within each session, and the presence and absence of feedback about reinforcement was manipulated across sessions. As the time limits became stricter, target response speeds increased, but accuracy and reinforcement rates decreased. When feedback was withheld, further reductions in speed and reinforcement occurred, but only at the strictest time limit. Thus, the procedures were successful in producing systematic variation in the speed, accuracy, and reinforcement of the target behavior. Experiment 2 was designed to assess the influence of these characteristics on self-reports. In self-report conditions, each target response was followed by a computer-generated query: "Did you earn points?" The subject reported by pressing "Yes" or "No" buttons, with the sole consequence of advancing the session. In some cases, feedback about reinforcement of the target response followed the reports; in other cases it was withheld. Self-reports were less accurate when the target responses occurred under greater time pressure. When feedback was withheld, the speed of the target response influenced reports, in that the probability of a "Yes" report increased directly with the speed of accurate target responses. In addition, imposing the self-report procedure disrupted target performance by reducing response speeds at the strictest time limit. These results allow investigation of issues in both behavioral and cognitive psychology. More important, the overall order in the data suggests promise for the experimental analysis of self-reports by human subjects.

On multiple fixed-ratio schedules, pausing is extended at the start of a component ending in a small reinforcer (a lean component) but only when this component follows a component ending in a large reinforcer (a rich component). In two experiments, we assessed whether a stimulus correlated with a lean component is aversive and how its function is affected by the preceding component. In Experiment 1, pigeons responded on mixed fixed-ratio schedules ending in large or small reinforcers. Observing responses converted the mixed schedule to a multiple one by producing a stimulus correlated with the current component. Overall, the lean stimulus did not suppress observing, suggesting that it was not sufficiently aversive. In Experiment 2, an escape procedure was used, and pigeons could convert a multiple schedule to a mixed one by pecking a key to remove the discriminative stimuli. Pigeons escaped from the lean-schedule stimulus more than they did from the rich one. For two pigeons, this effect was enhanced when a rich component preceded the lean stimulus. The results indicate that a stimulus correlated with the leaner of two reinforcement schedules can acquire aversive functions, but observing and escape procedures may differ in their abilities to detect this effect.

Adults' self-reports about their choices in a delayed matching-to-sample task were studied as a function of the number of elements (one, two, or three) in a compound sample stimulus. Signal-detection analyses were used to examine control of self-reports by the number of sample elements, by the speed and accuracy of choices reported about, and by several events contingent on self-reports. On each matching-to-sample trial, a sample element appeared as one of two comparison stimuli. Choice of the matching element, if made within 500 ms of the onset of the comparison stimuli, produced points worth money or chances in a drawing for money, depending on the subject. After each choice, subjects pressed either a "yes" or "no" button to answer a computer-generated query about whether the choice met the point contingency. The number of sample elements in the matching-to-sample task varied across trials, and events contingent on self-reports varied across experimental conditions. In Experiment 1, the conditions were defined by different combinations of feedback messages and point consequences contingent on self-reports, but self-reports were systematically influenced only by the sample-stimulus manipulation. Self-report errors increased with the number of sample elements. False alarms (inaccurate reports of success) were far more common than misses (inaccurate reports of failure), and false alarms were especially likely after choices that were correct but too slow to meet the point contingency. Sensitivity (A') of self-reports decreases as the number of sample elements increased. In addition, self-reports were more sensitive to choice accuracy than to choice speed. All subjects showed a pronounced bias (B'H) for reporting successful responses, although the bias was reduced as the number of sample elements increased and successful choices became less frequent. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the failure of point contingencies to influence self-reports in the first experiment was not due to a general ineffectiveness of the point consequences. Rates of inaccurate self-reports decreased when they resulted in point losses and increased when they resulted in point gains.