|
Reinforcing Value and Behavioral Developmental Stage |
Sunday, May 26, 2013 |
10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
M101 A (Convention Center) |
Area: DEV; Domain: Basic Research |
Chair: Michael Lamport Commons (Harvard Medical School) |
Abstract: This symposium presents both theoretical analyses and data showing that behavioral developmental stage and value of reinforcers obtained can be combined to form a new theoretical model that explains behavior more powerfully than looking at reinforcing value alone. First, we illustrate how behavioral developmental stage on one hand and value of reinforcement interact. One way this happens is that the stage required for contingencies between one's own behavior and the consequences to be discriminable may exceed the stage of performance of the person. A second way is that stage has an influence on the effective value of events. This new integrative theory is then illustrated using data from a study of peddlers, in which it is shown that there is an empirical relationship between behavioral stages of development on economic tasks and the income people obtain (value). A third paper makes predictions about how investors might do in the stock market, given different behavioral stages of investing (lower stage investors net lower values). Finally, a fourth paper presents empirical data that confirms in another context that an expert’s developmental stage of understanding predicts how biasing (a measure of value) they perceive a professional situation to be. |
Keyword(s): Behavioral developmental stage, Reinforcing value |
|
Behavioral Developmental Stage and Value of Reinforcers Strongly Interact With Each Other: an Overview |
MICHAEL LAMPORT COMMONS (Harvard Medical School) |
Abstract: Behavior Analysis has concentrated on contingencies of reinforcement and reinforcement value. We present a series of analyses and data showing that behavioral developmental stage and value of reinforcers obtained strongly interact with each other. This is especially important for interventions. For example, only about 20% of persons designated as Autistic are mainstreamed. This may be largely due to ignoring developmental sequences. Prerequisite behaviors have to be acquired first. Otherwise, one starts with too high a behavioral stage behavior for interventions to be successful. Behavioral developmental stage on one hand and amount and value for reinforcement interact in at least two ways. First, the stage required for contingencies between one's own behavior and the consequences to be discriminable may exceed the stage of performance of the person. A second way is that stage has an influence on the effective value and amount of events. |
|
Behavioral Developmental Stage of Pricing Strategy Predicts Earnings: A Study of Informal Economics |
LUCAS ALEXANDER HALEY COMMONS-MILLER (Dare Institute) |
Abstract: Social stratification, when driven by high levels of income disparity, is a significant moral issue. A common notion is that such disparity can be reduced by creating equal opportunity of education for all. Here, a cross-cultural study examines the relationship between behavioral stages of development on economic tasks and the income people obtain. Two groups of people from the United States and Brazil were studied (N = 51): people who sell things on the sidewalks (peddlers) and people who transport goods (carters). Three quasi-independent variables were examined: the behavioral stage of the person’s economic behavior, the country in which they lived, and how much schooling they had. It was found that the behavioral developmental stage of participants’ pricing strategies correlated most with how much they earned, r(53) = .506. The behavioral developmental stage (ß = 0.388, p = 0.03) was a better predictor of income than education (ß = 0.254, p = 0.057). These results show that behavioral developmental stage is a better predictor of income that other indicators such as education. This suggests that social stratification will continue to persist as long as differences in developmental stages persist. |
|
How Behavioral Developmental Stage Limits Success in Investing |
CHARU TARA TULADHAR (Mount Holyoke College) |
Abstract: Behavioral stage of development of most individual investors explains why their investments do not even keep up with inflation in and the vast majority (85%) of mutual funds do worse than the indexes. Concrete stage people listen to their friends, family and take tips that they follow. At the abstract stage, which is the stage of social norms, they buy what is popular. At the formal stage, almost everyone is risk adverse and buy very low yield “safe” things. At the systematic stage, they calculate utility knowing that yield is the value times the probability of obtaining that value. At the metasystematic stage one stops buying mutual funds and instead buys Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's); one understands portfolio theory. There is no reason to pay someone 1% when those people do worse than the indexes. They understand that the market is somewhat efficient; that the knowledge of everyone in the market is greater than the knowledge of almost any one individual. Only at the metasystematic stage by comparing systems, do people understand that within mid-range risk, increasing risk increases return. Therefore, behavioral developmental stage helps explain why there is social stratification even among the relatively high stage investors |
|
How Stage and Value Explain the Questionable Biases of Expert Witnesses |
EVA YUJIA LI (Harvard Graduate School of Education) |
Abstract: This paper is an empirical study showing the relatedness of the stage of behavior required by a situation and the perceived amount of bias in that situation. Forty-six participants, attendees at a workshop at the American Association of Psychiatry and the Law, were asked to rate the biasing potential of a number of situations that might affect the behavior of an opposing expert. A Rasch Analysis produced a linear scale as to the perceived biasing potential of such situations, from the most biasing to the least biasing. Working for only one side in both civil and criminal cases had large scaled values, which means that they were seen as highly biasing; they were also the first factor in a factor analysis. In interesting contrast, a) an opposing expert also serving as the litigant's treater and b) an opposing expert being viewed as a "hired gun" (supplying an opinion only for money) were two situations viewed as not very biasing. In a regression analysis, r(16) = 0.698, r2 = 0.487, the order of hierarchical complexity of an item predicted the perceived bias of the items from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd factors (F(1, 16) = 15.193, p = 0.001). |
|
|