Search

We investigated the effects of differential and nondifferential reinforcers on divided control by compound‐stimulus dimensions. Six pigeons responded in a delayed matching‐to‐sample procedure in which a blue or yellow sample stimulus flashed on/off at a fast or slow rate, and subjects reported its color or alternation frequency. The dimension to report was unsignaled (Phase 1) or signaled (Phase 2). Correct responses were reinforced with a probability of.70, and the probability of reinforcers for errors varied across conditions. Comparison choice depended on reinforcer ratios for correct and incorrect responding; as the frequency of error reinforcers according to a dimension increased, control (measured by log d) by that dimension decreased and control by the other dimension increased. Davison and Nevin's (1999) model described data when the dimension to report was unsignaled, whereas model fits were poorer when it was signaled, perhaps due to carryover between conditions. We are the first to test this quantitative model of divided control with reinforcers for errors and when the dimension to report is signaled; hence, further research is needed to establish the model's generality. We question whether divided stimulus control is dimensional and suggest it may instead reflect joint control by compound stimuli and reinforcer ratios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organisms may sometimes behave as if a contingency exists between behavior and consequences, even if this is not actually the case. Killeen (1978) suggested that such superstition occurs because of factors that bias subjects to behave "superstitiously" rather than because of failures of discrimination. We systematically replicated Killeen's experiment and compared contingency discrimination between different consequences. Six pigeons responded in a matching‐to‐sample procedure in which a response‐independent or response‐dependent stimulus change, food delivery, or blackout occurred. The pigeons reported whether the consequence was response dependent or response independent by choosing between two side keys. Discrimination was strongest after stimulus changes, weaker after blackouts, and weakest after food deliveries. These differences persisted even after additional training, suggesting asymmetries that may reflect differences in the disruptive effects of different consequences on remembering and/or behavioral mnemonics. Importantly, the pigeons were not biased to report response‐dependent consequences unless that response was consistent with locational biases; that is, they behaved "superstitiously" when there was a reason to be biased to do so. These findings corroborate Killeen's and demonstrate that behavior may deviate from contingencies not necessarily because subjects cannot discriminate those contingencies but because they are biased to behave otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stimulus overselectivity describes strong control by one stimulus element at the expense of other equally relevant elements. Research suggests that control by underselected stimuli emerges following extinction of the overselected stimulus ("revaluation") and the emergence is larger when overselectivity is greater. We compared such revaluation effects with a control compound or condition in two experiments. Human participants chose between compound S+ and S‐ stimuli. Then, to assess control by compound‐stimulus elements, participants chose between individual elements in a testing phase without feedback. The S+ element chosen most often (the overselected element) underwent revaluation, during which choice of that element was extinguished and choice of a novel element reinforced. Thereafter, participants completed a retesting phase. Revaluation reduced choice of the overselected element. Choice of the underselected element decreased for participants with low overselectivity but increased for participants with high overselectivity. This was not the case for a control compound that did not undergo revaluation (Experiments 1 and 2) or in a control condition in which the overselected element continued to be reinforced during revaluation (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that overselectivity levels may modulate revaluation effects, and they also highlight the importance of the contingency change in postrevaluation changes in stimulus control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stimuli that provide information about likely future reinforcers tend to shift behavior, provided a reliable relation between the stimulus and the reinforcer can be discriminated. Stimuli that are apparently more reliable exert greater control over behavior. We asked how the subjective value (measured in terms of preference) of reinforcers associated with stimuli influences stimulus control. Five pigeons worked on a concurrent chains procedure in which half of all trials ended in a smaller reinforcer sooner, and the other half in a larger reinforcer later. In Signaled trials, the color and flash duration on the keys in the initial link signaled the outcome of the trial. In Conflicting probe trials, the color and the flash duration signaled conflicting information about the outcome of the trial. Choice in Signaled trials shifted toward the signaled outcome, but was never exclusive. In Conflicting probe trials, control was divided idiosyncratically between the 2 stimulus dimensions, but still favored the outcome with the higher subjective value. Thus, stimulus control depends not only on the perceived reliability of stimuli, but also on the subjective value of the outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In concurrent schedules, reinforcers are often followed by a brief period of heightened preference for the just-productive alternative. Such 'preference pulses' may reflect local effects of reinforcers on choice. However, similar pulses may occur after nonreinforced responses, suggesting that pulses after reinforcers are partly unrelated to reinforcer effects. McLean, Grace, Pitts, and Hughes (2014) recommended subtracting preference pulses after responses from preference pulses after reinforcers, to construct residual pulses that represent only reinforcer effects. Thus, a reanalysis of existing choice data is necessary to determine whether changes in choice after reinforcers in previous experiments were actually related to reinforcers. In the present paper, we reanalyzed data from choice experiments in which reinforcers served different functions. We compared local choice, mean visit length, and visit-length distributions after reinforcers and after nonreinforced responses. Our reanalysis demonstrated the utility of McLean et al.'s preference-pulse correction for determining the effects of reinforcers on choice. However, visit analyses revealed that residual pulses may not accurately represent reinforcer effects, and reinforcer effects were clearer in visit analyses than in local-choice analyses. The best way to determine the effects of reinforcers on choice may be to conduct visit analyses in addition to local-choice analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]