Search

The present study examined resurgence of reinforced variability in college students, who completed a 3‐phase computer‐based variability task. In the first phase, baseline, points were delivered for drawing rectangles that sufficiently differed from previous rectangles in terms of a target dimension (size or location, counterbalanced) but were sufficiently similar in terms of the alternative dimension. In the second phase, alternative, points were only delivered for rectangles that were sufficiently different in terms of the alternative dimension, but repetitive in terms of the target dimension. In the third phase, extinction, no points were delivered. In baseline, participants made rectangles that were highly varied in terms of the target dimension and less varied in terms of the alternative dimension, and vice versa in the alternative phase. During extinction, levels of variability increased for the target dimension, providing evidence for resurgence of reinforced variability of a specific dimension of behavior. However, levels of variability also remained high for the alternative dimension, indicating that extinction‐induced response variability may also have impacted the results. Although future research is needed to explore other explanations, the results of this study replicate prior research with pigeons and provide some support for the notion of variability as an operant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the effects of outcome framing on delay discounting. In Experiment 1, participants completed four delay‐discounting tasks. In one monetary task, money was framed in units of dollars (＄50), and in the other, money was framed in units of handfuls of quarters (equal to ＄50). In one food task, food was framed in clear units of food (e.g., 100 M&Ms), and in the other, food was framed in units of servings (e.g., 10 servings of M&Ms). When money was framed in units of dollars, participants discounted less by delay compared to discounting of handfuls of quarters. When food was framed as clear units, participants also discounted less compared to how they discounted servings. In Experiment 2, participants completed two delay‐discounting tasks for dollars and quarters (e.g., ＄50 or 200 quarters) to determine if the results of Experiment 1 were due to the differences in handling costs. In one delay‐discounting task, money was framed in units of dollars. In the other delay‐discounting task, money was framed in units of quarters. There was no difference in how participants discounted delayed money framed as dollars or quarters. Clear unit framing may result in less discounting by delay than fuzzy unit framing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following training with verbal stimulus relations involving A is greater than B and B is greater than C, verbally-competent individuals reliably select A > C when asked “which is greater, A or C?” (i.e., verbal transitive inference). This result is easy to interpret. Nonhuman animals and humans with and without intellectual disabilities have been exposed to nonverbal transitive-inference procedures involving trained arbitrary stimulus relations. Following the training of A + B-, B + C-, C + D-, and D + E-, B reliably is selected over D (i.e., nonverbal transitive inference). Such findings are more challenging to interpret. The present research explored accounts of nonverbal transitive inference based in transitive inference per se, reinforcement, such as value-transfer theory, and operant stimulus control. In Experiment 1, college students selected B > G following the training of A + B-, B + C-, C + D-///E + F-, F + G-, and G + H- (where///signifies the omission of D + E-). In Experiment 2, college students selected B > G following the training of A + B-, B + C-, C + D-///E + F-, F + G-, and G + X- (where X refers to 10 stimuli that alternated across trials). In Experiment 3, college students selected G > B following the training of Y + B-, B + C-, C + D-///E + F-, F + G-, and G + X- (where Y and X refer to 10 stimuli, respectively, that alternated across trials). These findings are discussed in the context of operant stimulus control by offering an approach based in stimulus B typically acquiring only a select stimulus control topography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]