|
| International Paper Session - Choice I |
| Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
| 3:00 PM–3:50 PM |
| Randle A |
| Area: EAB |
| Chair: John R. Smethells (Central Michigan University) |
| |
| Reinforcer Magnitude Effects on the Dynamics of Choice: New Data Analysis. |
| Domain: Basic Research |
| CARLOS F. APARICIO (University of Guadalajara, Mexico), William M. Baum (University of California, Davis) |
| |
| Abstract: Local effects of individual reinforcers on response and time allocation are well documented in the study of choice. Yet, the combined effects of probability and magnitude of reinforcement on preference remain uncertain, probably due to the complexity and duration of the methods used to manipulate these variables with stationary behavior. The present study used choice behavior in transition to investigate within session changes in probability of reinforcement, and between session’s changes in magnitude of reinforcement. The magnitude of the reinforcer was manipulated across seven components of reinforcer. In phase A, regardless of the ratio of reinforcers associated to two levers, the left lever provided larger reinforcers than the right lever. In phase B these conditions were reversed, the reinforcer on the right lever was four times larger than the reinforcer on the left lever. At a molar lever of analysis, preference was described well by the generalized matching law. Local analyses showed that the most recently obtained reinforcers had substantially larger effect on preference than that caused by recently obtained reinforcers. The fact that larger reinforcers produced larger and longer preferences, is consistent with the idea that the variables controlling choice have both short- and long-term effects. |
| |
| A Critical Appraisal of Contemporary Approaches in the Quantitative Analysis of Behavior. |
| Domain: Basic Research |
| JAY MOORE (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee) |
| |
| Abstract: Much contemporary research in the experimental analysis of behavior has emphasized quantitative treatments of data, for example, the generalized matching law in concurrent schedules and quantitative models of responding on concurrent chain schedules. However, a critical appraisal of this research indicates much of the influence over it is derived from S. S. Stevens, rather than Skinner. The heavy influence of Stevens is ironic, given Skinner’s longstanding and generally bitter dispute with Stevens over the nature of scientific procedure and data formulation. It appears that many researchers in the experimental analysis of behavior either didn’t recognize the differences between Skinner and Stevens, or if they did recognize the differences, simply dismissed them, rationalizing that Skinner could be safely disregarded because he didn’t adhere to time-honored canons of respectable scientific inquiry in traditional psychology, such as might be represented in Stevens. An important question is whether the experimental analysis of behavior would be more advanced had researchers not adhered to Stevens’ approach. |
| |
|
| |