Influence of the cost of responding

Abstract

In three experiments, the effect of costs associated with responding on judgments of the causal effectiveness of the response was examined. In Experiment 1, the temporal interval between outcomes was matched on a variable interval (VI) and a variable ratio (VR) schedule. When each response was made at some "cost," and outcomes represented some "gain" for the subject, the rating of causal effectiveness for responses was higher on the VR than on the VI schedule. This relationship was absent when the outcome was a triangle flash. In Experiment 2, the number of responses required per outcome on a VI and a VR schedule were matched, and responses on the VR schedule were rated as more causally effective. In Experiment 3, a VI-to-VR yoking procedure was used. With minimal response costs, judgments were similar on the VI and VR schedules, but with greater response costs, responses performed on the VR schedule were rated as more causally effective than those emitted on the VI schedule.

Human performance on random ratio and random interval schedules, performance awareness and verbal instructions

“…In accordance with the results of previous studies, the findings indicated that some humans can show schedulesensitive performance on RR and RI schedules, similar to that displayed by nonhumans (see Baron & Galizio, 1983;Bradshaw & Reed, 2012;Matthews et al, 1977;Raia et al, 2000;Reed, 1993Reed, , 1994Reed, , 1999Reed, , 2001Shimoff et al, 1981) and that these response patterns are related to performance awareness (see Bradshaw & Reed, 2012).…”

“…These differentiated VR-RR versus VI-RI response rates are also sometimes seen in humans (see Baron & Galizio, 1983;Bradshaw & Reed, 2012;Matthews, Shimoff, Catania, & Sagvolden, 1977;Raia, Shillingford, Miller, & Baier, 2000;Reed, 1993Reed, , 1994Reed, , 1999Reed, , 2001Shimoff, Catania, & Matthews, 1981). However, schedule-induced response rates in humans are far less consistent than those of nonhumans, and findings have suggested that a significant proportion of human participants perform in a manner which is insensitive to the contingency of the schedule presented (see Bradshaw & Reed, 2012;Catania, Matthews, & Shimoff, 1982;Matthews et al, 1977;Shimoff et al, 1981;Wearden & Shimp, 1985).…”

Generalization of causal efficacy judgments after evaluative learning

“…This series of experiments replicated previous research (Reed, 1994(Reed, , 1999(Reed, , 2001a(Reed, , 2001b(Reed, , 2003 in which causal efficacy ratings mirrored the pattern of rates of response, even when the rates of reinforcement (Experiment 2) and the probability of an outcome given a response (Experiment 3) were equated. That is, when response rates were high, ratings of causal efficacy were also high, and when response rates were low, ratings of causal efficacy were low.…”

“…This finding contrasts with those from conditions with weak action-outcome relationships (such as differential reinforcement of low rate [DRL] and variable interval [VI] schedules), which tend to produce low ratings of causal efficacy and low rates of response (Reed, 1994(Reed, , 1999(Reed, , 2001a(Reed, , 2001b(Reed, , 2003. Such effects have particularly been studied in the context of learned helplessness, which is often used as a model of depression (Maldonado, Martos, & Ramirez, 1991;Reed, Frasquillo, Colkin, Liemann, & Colbert, 2001).…”

“…In Experiment 1, we sought to establish basic schedule control over the causal efficacy ratings, replicating previous studies of humans (Reed, 1994(Reed, , 1999(Reed, , 2001a(Reed, , 2001b schedules) have been found to produce high ratings of causal efficacy, often along with high rates of response. This finding contrasts with those from conditions with weak action-outcome relationships (such as differential reinforcement of low rate [DRL] and variable interval [VI] schedules), which tend to produce low ratings of causal efficacy and low rates of response (Reed, 1994(Reed, , 1999(Reed, , 2001a(Reed, , 2001b(Reed, , 2003.…”