|
| Relative Potency of Appetitive and Aversive Events: Is Bad Stronger than Good? |
| Sunday, May 30, 2004 |
| 2:30 PM–3:50 PM |
| Beacon D |
| Area: EAB/BPH; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Thomas S. Critchfield (Illinois State University) |
| Abstract: . |
| |
| How Bad May Be Stronger Than Good: Evidence from Outside Behavior Analysis |
| THOMAS S. CRITCHFIELD (Illinois State University), Derek D. Reed (Illinois State University) |
| Abstract: We provide a review of the empirical evidence from outside behavior analysis that suggests greater relative potency of aversive versus appetitive events, as well as a critical evaluation of this evidence and its implications for behavior theory and research. |
| |
| Does Losing Hurt Worse than Winning Feels Good? Better Losing through Pharmacology |
| SCOTT D. LANE (University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston), Don R. Cherek (University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston), Cynthia J. Pietras (Western Michigan University), Oleg Tcheremissine (University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston) |
| Abstract: In environments with multiple response options, both biological and conditioning factors determine behavior patterns. When the situation involves the possibility of reinforcing and aversive consequences (i.e., gains and losses), research suggests that gains and losses do not influence behavior equivalently. Ceteris paribus, losses exert greater control over behavior than do gains; leading to the well-documented tendency toward risk-aversion. The phenomenon has been well-characterized by simple yet efficient decision algorithms that maximize gain and minimize loss, and, presumably, has neurobiological underpinnings. If true, disruption of CNS processes via drug administration may alter the relative impact of reinforcing and aversive consequences in decision-making situations. “Disinhibitory” drugs (those that make otherwise low-probability behaviors more likely) alter sensitivity to aversive and reinforcing stimuli, and are correlated with risky behavioral in the natural environment. We will describe a series human laboratory studies in which risky choices were systematically increased following administration of disinhibitory drugs (alcohol, marijuana, and alprazolam). We will then show, via trial-by-trial response probabilities, the manner in which risky response patterns changed. Finally, we will suggest that alteration of the relative impact of reinforcing and aversive consequences is a behavioral mechanism by which drugs modify the probability of risky behavior. |
| |
| Concurrent Schedules of Positive and Negative Reinforcement: Differential-impact and Differential-outcomes Effects |
| MICHAEL A. MAGOON (Auburn University), Thomas S. Critchfield (Illinois State University), Dustin Merrill (Illinois State University) |
| Abstract: Previous studies of negative reinforcement in concurrent schedules SUGGEST that aversive consequences exert no disproportional influence over nonhuman behavior, in that matching of positive to negative reinforcement creates no systematic bias for or against negative reinforcement. Existing studies are limited, however, by (a) absence of a homogeneous-reinforcement baseline function against which to compare matching functions incorporating heterogenous reinforcement; and (b) appetitive and aversive consequences are qualitatively different, precluding comparisons on a unit-by-unit basis. We describe studies involving humans subjects that solve these problems. Under most circumstances, we find no systematic bias, suggesting that indeed there is no differential impact of positive and negative reinforcement. We do, however, regularly encounter increase matching slopes under heterogenous reinforcement. This is possibly the first free operant demonstration of the "differential outcomes effect," and it supports a prediction of Davison & Nevin's (1999) integrated model of reinforcement and stimulus control. Our studies also shed some light on what is functionally different about positive and negative reinforcement. |
| |
| Response-cost Punishment in Pigeons |
| TIMOTHY D. HACKENBERG (University of Florida), Cynthia J. Pietras (University of Florida), Christopher E. Bullock (University of Florida), Bethany R. Raiff (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: The present research examined punishment via response-contingent removal of conditioned token reinforcers (response cost). Pigeons' key pecking was maintained on a two-component multiple second-order schedule of token delivery. In both components, responding produced tokens according to a random-interval 20-s schedule and exchange periods according to a variable-ratio schedule. During exchange periods, each token was exchangeable for 2.5-s access to grain. In one component, responses were conjointly punished according to fixed-ratio schedules of token removal. Response rates in this punishment component decreased to low levels while response rates in the alternate (no-punishment) component were unaffected. Responding was eliminated when it produced neither tokens nor exchange periods (extinction) but was maintained at moderate levels when it produced tokens in the signaled absence of food reinforcement, suggesting that tokens served as effective conditioned reinforcers. Several addition phases of the experiment have attempted to separate effects of the punishment contingency from concomitant changes in the rate of food reinforcement. |
|
| |