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 money-backed 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.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Bowe C. A., Dinsmoor J. A. Spatial and temporal relations in conditioned reinforcement and observing behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Mar;39(2):227–240. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Case D. A., Fantino E. The delay-reduction hypothesis of conditioned reinforcement and punishment: Observing behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Jan;35(1):93–108. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.35-93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dinsmoor J. A., Browne M. P., Lawrence C. E. A test of the negative discriminative stimulus as a reinforcer of observing. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Jul;18(1):79–85. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1972.18-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fantino E., Case D. A. Human observing: Maintained by stimuli correlated with reinforcement but not extinction. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Sep;40(2):193–210. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.40-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mulvaney D. E., Dinsmoor J. A., Jwaideh A. R., Hughes L. H. Punishment of observing by the negative discriminative stimulus. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 Jan;21(1):37–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mulvaney D. E., Hughes L. H., Jwaideh A. R., Dinsmoor J. A. Differential production of positive and negative discriminative stimuli by normal and retarded children. J Exp Child Psychol. 1981 Dec;32(3):389–400. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(81)90104-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Perone M., Baron A. Reinforcement of human observing behavior by a stimulue correlated with extinction or increased effort. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Nov;34(3):239–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- WYCKOFF L. B., Jr The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. Psychol Rev. 1952 Nov;59(6):431–442. doi: 10.1037/h0053932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]