Reinforcement of Human Observing Behavior by a Stimulus Correlated With Extinction or Increased Effort

Abstract

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.

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

“…The explanation proposed by in accounting for Perone and Baron's (1980) results depends upon there being differences between the studies with respect to response efficiency permitted through observing S-(less positive discriminative stimuli). Fantino and Case elected to use response-independent reinforcement in order to eliminate all possible considerations of response efficiency in accounting for their results.…”

“…Observing maintained by S-, a less positive discriminative stimulus, was measured in different conditions in which observing either could or could not be correlated with a more efficient distribution of responses required for reinforcement. Experiment 1 used responsedependent reinforcement, as in Perone and Baron's (1980) research, but this time contingencies were arranged so as to minimize the improvement in response efficiency permitted through observing a less positive discriminative stimulus. Experiment 2 closely duplicated response contingencies employed by Fantino and Case in one condition, and those employed by Perone and Baron in another, in order to vary within the same subjects the response efficiency made possible by observing S-.…”

Information on Response Requirements Compared With Information on Food Density as a Rein Forcer of Observing in Pigeons

“…With human subjects, much of the controversy has revolved about the role played by response cost or effort (Case, Fantino, & Wixted, 1985;Perone & Baron, 1980), and the argument has spilled over to the role played by the same factor in experiments using pigeons (Dinsmoor, 1983;Perone & Baron, 1983). In private communications, too, it is frequently assumed that by producing a stimulus in the presence of which no pecking of the food-delivering key is "required" (negative discriminative stimulus), the pigeon can economize on the energy it expends in procuring the food (see also Steiner, 1970).…”

Effects of orienting instructions on human fixed-interval performance

“…, 1981). Still other researchers have explicitly stated the experimental task (e.g., Perone & Baron, 1980;Poppen, 1982). Unfortunately, the control which such orienting instructions might exert over human behavior in operant contexts has not been studied systematically.…”