The matching law was used to analyze whether the proportion of shots taken from two- or three-point range would match the proportional reinforcement rates produced by those shots when the reinforcement rate of three-point shooting was changed. Rule changes in 1994 and 1997 altered the distance of the three-point line in the National Basketball Association, which created a quasiexperimental reversal design, thereby naturally changing three-point reinforcement rates. The present data partially confirmed predictions made by the matching law, in that increases in the relative rate of three-point shots attempted corresponded to increases in the relative rate of three-point shots made.

We review the nature of conditioned reinforcement, including evidence that conditioned reinforcers maintain choice behavior in concurrent schedules and that they elevate responding in the terminal links of concurrent-chains schedules. A question has resurfaced recently: Do theories of choice in concurrent-chains schedules need to include a term reflecting greater preference for higher rates of conditioned reinforcement? The review of several studies addressing this point suggests that such a term is inappropriate. Elevated rates of conditioned reinforcement (and responding) in the terminal links of concurrent-chains schedules do not lead to greater preference in the initial link leading to the higher rate of conditioned reinforcement. If anything, the opposite preference is likely to occur. This result is not surprising, since the additional putative conditioned reinforcers in the terminal link are not correlated with a reduction in time to primary reinforcement nor with an increase in value.

Studies indicate that when abstinence is initiated, escalating reinforcement schedules maintain continuous abstinence longer than fixed reinforcement schedules. However, these studies were conducted for shorter durations than most clinical trials and also resulted in larger reinforcer value for escalating participants during the 1st week of the experiment. We tested whether escalating reinforcement schedules maintained abstinence longer than fixed reinforcement schedules in a 12-week clinical trial. Smokers (146) were randomized to an escalating reinforcement schedule, a fixed reinforcement schedule, or a control condition. Escalating reinforcement participants received $5.00 for their first breath carbon monoxide (CO) sample <3 ppm, with a $0.50 increase for each consecutive sample. Fixed reinforcement participants received $19.75 for each breath CO sample <3 ppm. Control participants received payments only for delivering a breath CO sample. Similar proportions of escalating and fixed reinforcement participants met the breath CO criterion at least once. Escalating reinforcement participants maintained criterion breath CO levels longer than fixed reinforcement and control participants. Similar to previous short-term studies, escalating reinforcement schedules maintained longer durations of abstinence than fixed reinforcement schedules during a clinical trial.

Social– cognitive and behavioral theories of change disagree on what the relevant controlling variables for initiating behavior change are. Correlations between baseline smoking cessation self-efficacy and the changes in breath carbon monoxide (CO) and the reduction in breath CO and increases in smoking cessation self-efficacy from baseline were obtained from a contingency management smoking cessation procedure. A test of the difference between the cross-lag correlations suggested a nonspurious causal relationship between smoking cessation self-efficacy and changes in breath CO. Path analyses showed that decreases in breath CO (reductions in smoking) predicted later increases in smoking cessation self-efficacy. Baseline self-reports of smoking cessation self-efficacy were not significantly correlated with subsequent changes in breath CO. Rather, significant correlations were found between reductions in breath CO and later increases in smoking cessation self-efficacy. These results suggest that self-efficacy may be a cognitive response to one’s own behavior, and are inconsistent with a social– cognitive view of self-efficacy’s role in behavior change. Implications for the development of smoking cessation programs and health-promoting behavior changes in general are discussed.

No abstract