Human Observing: Maintained by Negative Informative Stimuli Only if Correlated With Improvement in Response Efficiency

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the effect of observing responses that enabled college students to emit more efficient distributions of reinforced responses. In Experiment 1, the gains of response efficiency enabled by observing were minimized through use of identical low-effort response requirements in two alternating variable-interval schedules. These comprised a mixed schedule of reinforcement; they differed in the number of moneybacked points per reinforcer. In each of three choices between two stimuli that varied in their correlation with the variable-interval schedules, the results showed that subjects preferred stimuli that were correlated with the larger average amount of reinforcement. This is consistent with a conditioned-reinforcement hypothesis. Negative informative stimuli -that is, stimuli correlated with the smaller of two rewards -did not maintain as much observing as stimuli that were uncorrelated with amount of reward. In Experiment 2, savings in effort made possible by producing S-were varied within subjects by alternately removing and reinstating the response-reinforcement contingency in a mixed variable-interval/extinction schedule of reinforcement. Preference for an uncorrelated stimulus compared to a negative informative stimulus (S-) decreased for each of six subjects, and usually reversed when observing permitted a more efficient temporal distribution of the responses required for reinforcement; in this case, the responses were pulls on a relatively high-effort plunger. When observing the S-could not improve response efficiency, subjects again chose the control stimulus. All of these results were inconsistent with the uncertainty-reduction hypothesis.Key words: conditioned reinforcement, observing, choice, information, response efficiency, lever pressing, adultsObserving responses are those that may produce stimuli correlated with the components of a mixed schedule of reinforcement.In a mixed schedule of reinforcement, the schedules of reinforcement that operate independently in each component all share the same stimulus. Other than identifying the component currently operative, by effectively converting the mixed to a multiple schedule, observing responses have no effect on primary reinforcement (Wyckoff, 1952).A large number of experiments investigating why the contingent stimuli reinforce observing have produced results consistent

The Effectiveness of and Preschoolers' Preferences for Variations of Multiple‐schedule Arrangements

“…However, conditions in which the S2 was present were preferred by 3 children who rarely responded in the presence of the extinction-correlated stimulus. Case, Fantino, and Wixted (1985) described conditions in which extinction-correlated stimuli would function as reinforcers. In this study with college students, pulling a plunger intermittently earned points and pressing an observing button intermittently signaled extinction periods (e.g., a blue light turned on if an extinction period was programmed) but not reinforcement periods (i.e., no light turned on if a reinforcement period was programmed).…”

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

“…Many different experiments were conducted to separate these two accounts, with the result that the conditioned reinforcement hypothesis has been generally supported (Dinsmoor, 1983, provides the most recent review). Specifically, observing behavior appears not to be maintained by presentations of the S-alone (in fact, considerable evidence indicates that Spresentations are aversive and actually suppress the observing response), although some controversy still remains with respect to experiments involving human subjects (see Case, Fantino, & Wixted, 1985 …”

Attitudes toward early detection of infection by the AIDS retrovirus among persons at high and low risk

“…Although studies suggest that fewer subjects would request unfavorable information if it were actually offered , even information certain to be bad is generally preferred over uncertainty if it can effectively guide action (e.g., Case et al, 1985;Case , Ploog, & Fantino, 1990). The present subjects' responses are consistent with this view.…”

“…The children preferred a totally uninformative to an informative stimulus about nonrewarding outcomes. " Bad news" was also avoided by collegestudents, unlessit couldbe utilized to improveone's circumstances (Case, Fantino, & Wixted, 1985; The research and preparation of this manuscript were supported by NIMH Grant MH-20752 and NSF Grants BNS 83-02963 and BNS 91-08719 to the Univers ity of California at San Diego (E.F ., principal investigator) and by University of California, San Diego. Project 84-481 and NIH Grant HL-32471 to the Univers ity of California, San Diego (LA .M ., principal investigator) .…”