Groups of 8 experimentally naive rats were exposed during 8-hr sessions to resetting delay procedures in which responses on one lever (the reinforcement lever) produced water after a delay of 8, 16, 32, or 64 s. For rats in one condition, responses on a second (no-consequences) lever had no programmed consequences. For rats in another condition, responses on a second (cancellation) lever during a delay initiated by a response on the reinforcement lever prevented delivery of the scheduled reinforcer; responses on the cancellation lever at other times had no programmed consequences. Under both conditions and at all delays, most subjects emitted more responses on the reinforcement lever than did control rats that never received water emitted on either lever. At 8-s delays, both conditions engendered substantially more responding on the reinforcement lever than on the other lever, and performance closely resembled that of immediate-reinforcement controls. At delays of 16 and 32 s, however, there was clear differential responding on the two levers under the cancellation condition but not under the other condition. When the delay was 64 s, differential responding on the two levers did not occur consistently under either condition. These findings provide strong evidence that the behavior of rats is sensitive to consequences delayed by 8, 16, and 32 s, but only equivocal evidence of such sensitivity to consequences delayed 64 s. They also indicate that acquisition depends, in part, on the measure of performance used to index it.

The present study examined in 8-hour sessions the effects of d-amphetamine (1.0, 5.6, and 10 mg/kg) on the acquisition of lever-press responding in rats that were exposed to procedures in which water delivery was delayed by 0, 8, or 16 seconds relative to the response that produced it. Both nonresetting- and resetting-delay conditions were studied. Although neither shaping nor autoshaping occurred, substantial levels of operative-lever responding developed under all conditions in which responses produced water. The lowest dose (1.0 mg/kg) of d-amphetamine either had no effect on or increased operative-lever pressing, whereas higher doses typically produced an initial reduction in lever pressing. Nonetheless, overall rates of operative-lever pressing at these doses were as high as, or higher than, those observed with vehicle. Thus, response acquisition was observed under all reinforcement procedures at all drug doses. In the absence of the drug, most responding occurred on the operative lever when reinforcement was immediate. Such differential responding also developed under both nonresetting- and resetting-delay procedures when the delay was 8 seconds, but not when it was 16 seconds. d-Amphetamine did not affect the development of differential responding under any procedure. Thus, consistent with d-amphetamine's effects under repeated acquisition procedures, the drug had no detrimental effect on learning until doses that produced general behavioral disruption were administered.

The Behavior Analysis Certification Board (BACB) prohibits the solicitation of testimonials from current clients and provides specific requirements regulating the use of testimonials from former clients. These regulations protect current clients from undue influence and prospective clients from unscientific efficacy claims. We conducted an Internet search to investigate the dissemination of client testimonials on websites advertising behavior-analytic services. We found that client testimonials were numerous, and most were out of compliance with the BACB's regulations. We recommend that behavior analysts review their employer's websites and notify them if they include violations of BACB policy. In addition, we suggest that the behavior-analytic community must work to identify and remediate problematic dissemination of client information.

No abstract

No abstract