Hiroto Okouchi

The present study examined whether bidirectional response-response relations could be established without direct reinforcement. In AB training for 12 undergraduates, higher rates of touches to a white circle on the monitor screen (A1) produced two stimuli (B1 and B2) on half of the trials, whereas lower rates (A2) produced the same effect on the other half. Choosing one of the two stimuli was reinforced according to the preceding responding (A1B1 and A2B2). In BC training, touching a stimulus (B1 or B2) produced three white circles lined up horizontally on the screen, after which one of two different response sequences to the circles (left-center-right, C1 or C2, and right-center-left, C2 or C1) were reinforced, depending on the stimulus presented (B1C1 and B2C2). After AB and BC relations were established, 11 of 12 participants showed the emergence of untrained relations (BA, CB, AC, and CA) throughout five test sessions, and the remaining participant showed it in the first four test sessions. These response-response relations were replicated with five other undergraduates and different trained relations.

Two experiments were conducted to assess stimulus control and generalization of remote behavioral history effects with humans. Undergraduates first responded frequently under a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule in the presence of one line length (16 mm or 31 mm) and infrequently on a tandem FR 1 differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule when a second line length (31 mm or 16 mm) was present. Next, an FR 1 schedule in effect in the presence of either stimulus produced comparable response rates between the stimuli. Finally, a tandem FR 1 fixed-interval (FI) schedule was in effect under those same stimuli (Experiment 1) or under 12 line lengths ranging from 7 to 40 mm (Experiment 2). In both experiments, responses under the tandem FR 1 FI schedule were frequent in the presence of stimuli previously correlated with the FR schedule and infrequent in the presence of stimuli previously correlated with the tandem FR 1 DRL schedule. Short-lived but systematic generalization gradients were obtained in Experiment 2. These results show that previously established rates of behavior that disappear when the establishing contingencies are changed can subsequently not only reappear when the contingencies change, but are controlled by and generalize across antecedent stimuli.

A matching procedure was used to examine whether humans discriminate fixed-interval (FI) schedules. Fixed-ratio (FR), FI, or differentialreinforcement- of-low-rate (DRL) schedules were in effect during a sample schedule link. Responses meeting the schedule requirement produced a choice link in which each of three circles was presented with a unique color. The choice was reinforced depending on the schedule of the sample link. In Experiment 1, a correct response equal to or higher than 94.4% was obtained for each sample schedule in each of the four undergraduates. Post hoc analyses suggested that time spent with the sample schedule link may have functioned as a discriminative stimulus of the choices. In Experiment 2, after replicating the schedule discrimination with additional four participants, the FI value was changed to equate to the mean time spent in the FR or DRL schedule link. With this modified FI value, the accuracy was deteriorated but eventually recovered, whereas the lengths of time spent in the sample schedule links diverged across the schedules. Previous studies have shown that humans were insensitive to reinforcement schedules, especially to the FI schedule. These results demonstrate that humans discriminated the FI schedule and suggest that human schedule insensitivity is due to other than discriminative properties of the schedules.

Pressing a key by one undergraduate provided another undergraduate with points exchangeable for money, and vice versa. Four types of response patterns were found. Points were often delivered with a delay from the last response or with no response. When a contingency that responses lost points (punishment) was added to participants who had emitted more responses than the partner had, their response rates decreased while the rates of their partners increased. These results demonstrate that, under the contingency of mutual reinforcement: (a) response patterns that had occurred between monkeys were replicated between humans; (b) obtained response-reinforcer relations were different from those generally programmed in the basic reinforcement schedules; and (c) the behavior of the participant was controlled by changing the behavior of the partner.

Undergraduates were exposed to a series of reinforcement schedules: first, to a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule in the presence of one stimulus and to a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DILL) schedule in the presence of another (multiple FR DRL training), then to a fixed-interval (FI) schedule in the presence of a third stimulus (FI baseline), next to the FI schedule under the stimuli previously correlated with the FR and DRL schedules (multiple FI FI testing), and, finally, to a single session of the multiple FR DRL schedule again (multiple FR DRL testing). Response rates during the multiple FI FI schedule were higher under the former FR stimulus than under the former DRL stimulus. This effect of remote histories was prolonged when either the number of FI-baseline sessions was small or zero, or the time interval between the multiple FR DRL training and the multiple FI FI testing was short. Response rates under these two stimuli converged with continued exposure to the multiple FI FI schedule in most cases, but quickly differentiated when the schedule returned to the multiple FR DRL.

Study objective: Effects of naming training and comparison-as-node training on the establishment of stimulus equivalence were examined. Design: Group comparison and within-subject comparison designs were used. Participants: 13 undergraduates participated. Intervention: In Phase 1, all participants experienced matching-to-sample training under the linear-series training structure, followed by a test examining whether three 5-member equivalent classes had been established. In Phase 2, the participants experienced the same matching-to-sample training and equivalent class test as Phase 1, but with different stimulus sets. Prior to this, participants were given naming training, comparison-as-node training, or no additional training. Measures: Percentage of correct responses and response latency. Results: No participant established stimulus equivalence in Phase 1. In Phase 2, participants who had received naming training or comparison-as-node training established stimulus equivalence, whereas participants without such additional training did not. Conclusion: Prior training on comparison-as-node, as well as on naming, contributed to the establishment of stimulus equivalence.

In Experiment 1, undergraduates first made choices hypothetically between an uncertain large reward and a certain small reward, second they made choices with real money, and finally they again made hypothetical choices. The discounting rates in the first hypothetical reward condition were higher than those in the following conditions of real or hypothetical rewards. A significant difference in the discounting rate across conditions was not found when the real reward condition was replaced by the hypothetical reward condition (Experiment 2) or by the condition with probability contingency and hypothetical reward (Experiment 3). The difference in the discounting rate was replicated between the hypothetical and real reward conditions when the participants invested money when they selected an uncertain-large reward (Experiment 4). Johnson &amp Bickel (2002) found no difference in the discounting rate between hypothetical and real rewards when the real rewards were delivered to participants not during but after the experiment. The present experiments, by contrast, delivered real money immediately after every choice, and demonstrate that real and hypothetical rewards differ in the values of discounting rates.

Study objective: The present study examined effects of a remote history of a DRL schedule on interresponse times (IRTs) under a VI schedule with human subjects. Design: Double-history, single-history, and no history conditions were compared across subjects. Setting: The experiment was conducted individually in a room. Subjects: Two male and eleven female undergraduates with no experience of reinforcement experiments, 19 to 22 years old, participated. Procedure: In the doublehistory condition, DRL 1-s with LH 1-s, DRL 5-s with LH 5-s, and VI 5-s schedules were in effect in that order. The single-history subjects were exposed only to the last two schedules, whereas the no-history subjects experienced only the VI 5-s schedule. Results: For all subjects in the double-history condition, IRTs longer than 1s and equal to or shorter than 2s, which had been reinforced differentially under the DRL 1-s with LH 1-s, emitted more frequently during the last five VI 5-s sessions than during the first five. Such a systematic difference was not observed in the single-history and no-history conditions. Conclusion: These results suggest that a schedule history affected remotely on the VI responding, and that the IRT was a useful measure for examining the remote history effects.

Four pigeons were exposed to two tandem variable-interval differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedules under different stimulus conditions. The values of the tandem schedules were adjusted so that reinforcement rates in one stimulus condition were higher than those in the other, even though response rates in the two conditions were nearly identical. Following this, a fixed-interval schedule of either shorter or longer values than, or equal to the baseline schedule, was introduced in the two stimulus conditions respectively. Response rates during those fixed-interval schedules typically were higher in the presence of the stimuli previously correlated with the lower reinforcement rates than were those in the presence of the stimuli previously correlated with the higher reinforcement rates. Such effects of the reinforcement history were most prominent when the value of the fixed-interval schedule was shorter. The results are consistent with both incentive contrast and response strength conceptualizations of related effects. They also suggest methods for disentangling the effects of reinforcement rate on subsequent responding, from the response rate with which it is Confounded in many conventional schedules of reinforcement.

This analogue study examined the effectiveness of a social-standard setting on self-instructional control for cold-pressor pain. Twelve male undergraduates were served as participants. Self-instructions were effective on the increase in the tolerance time to iced water compared to baseline. When participants thought experimenter knew their instructions, the tolerance time to iced water was longer than that when participants thought no one knew their instructions. Any self-instructional control was not observed on subjective measures (pain perception and unpleasantness). These results suggest that the effect of social-standard setting on self-instructional control for pain was partially replicated. Some future research directions were discussed.

The relation between reformative self-control and discounting of reward value by delay or effort was examined. Thirty-two Japanese undergraduates were selected based on their scores on a standardized pencil and paper test of self-control, the Redressive-Reformative Self-Control Scale (Sugiwaka, 1995). The subjects indicated their preference (i) between a hypothetical 100 000 yen reward available with various delays and a certain reward of variable amount available immediately; or (ii) between a hypothetical 100 000 yen reward available with various efforts and a certain reward of variable amount available without effort. The discounting of delayed reward value was described well by a hyperbolic function proposed by Mazur (1987). The slopes of the delayed discounting curves were steeper for subjects who scored low on the Reformative Self-Control Scale, which is a measure of reformative self-control and a subscale of the Redressive-Reformative Self-Control Scale. The discounting by effort was also described well by the hyperbolic function, The slopes of the effortful discounting curves did not correlate to those of the delayed discounting curves. The slopes were not systematically different across the groups of subjects with different scores on the reformative self-control scale.

Study objectives: The purpose of the present study was to analyze everyday behavior, specifically, whether the interval between train arrivals would influence passengers' behavior of arriving at the platform. Design: The pattern of the number of people arriving at a platform during the interval between trains was compared at 3 stations where the intervals between train arrivals differed. Settings: The study was conducted at 3 stations in the Kansai district (western Japan) at which only local train stopped. Participants: All passengers boarding trains on the selected platforms during the observation period were participants. Independent variable: The number of trains arriving at a station per hour (2, 6, or 12) was the Independent variable. Results: The longer the interval between trains, the more people tended to arrive at the platform just before the train came. Conclusion: The present results suggest that the arrival of trains functions like a reinforcer, so that the interval between trains functions like a reinforcement schedule.

A report to have responded slowly was reinforced after a fixed-ratio schedule, whereas a report to have responded rapidly was reinforced after a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. All 5 undergraduates reported they had responded slowly when the last interresponse time during the preceding schedule had been short, and had responded rapidly when the last interresponse time had been long. This referent-report relation was not observed when every report was reinforced nondifferentially. The results demonstrate that the self-reports were affected by the differential reinforcement when schedule performances were their referent.

Undergraduates responded under a variable-ratio 30 schedule in the presence of a 25-mm long line and on a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 6-s schedule when a 13-mm long line was present. Following this, a line-length continuum generalization test was administered under a fixed-interval 6-s schedule (Experiment 1) or extinction (Experiment 2). In both experiments, obtained generalization gradients conformed to typical postdiscrimination gradients. Responses were frequent under stimuli physically similar to the 25-mm line and infrequent under stimuli physically similar to the 13-mm line. The generalization gradients were generally asymmetric with peak response rates occurring at line lengths greater than 25 mm.

The present article reviews studies on the experimental analysis of rule-governed behavior. The main results are as follows: (1) Although instructions are effective in establishing an efficient occurrence of responses, sensitivity to changes in the contingencies is reduced when instructions are used. (2) Contingencies that contact the instructions eliminate instruction-following responses. (3) A history of correspondence between instruc tions and reinforcement schedules promotes instruction-following responses. (4) Without certain programmed contingencies, self-rules correlate with nonverbal responses. (5) Nonverbal responses generally covariate with self-rules. When reinforcement schedules for nonverbal responses are strong and contradict the contingencies for verbal responses, however, the nonverbal responses do not co-vary with the self-rules. (6) When a chain of a self-rule and a nonverbal response was reinforced, the self-rule and nonverbal responses were correlated. Some future directions for research on rule-governed behavior were discussed from the viewpoint of social contingencies.

Undergraduates were exposed to a mixed fixed-ratio differential- reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. Values of the schedule components were adjusted so that interreinforcer intervals in one component were longer than those in another component. Following this, a mixed fixed-interval 5-s fixed-interval 20-s schedule (Experiment 1) or six fixed-interval schedules in which the values ranged from 5 to 40 s (Experiment 2) were in effect. In both experiments, response rates under the fixed-interval schedules were higher when the interreinforcer intervals approximated those produced under the fixed-ratio schedule, whereas the rates were lower when the interreinforcer intervals approximated those produced under the different-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule. The present results demonstrate that the effects of behavioral history were under control of the interreinforcer intervals as discriminative stimuli.

Six undergraduates were exposed to a fixed-ratio schedule with an instruction to respond slowly and to a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule with an instruction to respond rapidly when a white circle was presented on a display monitor. When a yellow circle was presented, however, the subjects were exposed to the fixed-ratio schedule with the instruction to respond rapidly and to the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule with the instruction to respond slowly. Following this, a fixed-interval schedule was in effect during those stimuli and instructions. Under the white circle, response rates were higher with the instruction to respond slowly than with the instruction to respond rapidly during the fixed-interval schedule. Such control by instructions was not observed under the yellow circle. A previous study examined establishment of novel instructional control by between-subject comparisons and found that for three of four subjects (Okouchi, 1999). In contrast, the present results demonstrate the instructional control through within-subject comparisons for all six subjects.

Study objective: The purpose of this study was to establish self-instructional control by differential reinforcement of novel chains of self-instruction and nonverbal behavior. Design: 3 conditions were compared: a verbal-nonverbal noncorrespondence history condition, a verbal-nonverbal correspondence history condition, and a no-history condition. Setting: An experimental room. Participants: Undergraduates (8 males, 15 females; 18-27 years old) with no prior experience with experiments on reinforcement schedules. Procedure: 5 participants in Experiment 1, and 4 in Experiment 2, all of whom were in the verbal-nonverbal noncorrespondence history condition, were exposed to an FR schedule when they had chosen an instruction to respond slowly, and a DRL schedule when they had chosen an instruction to respond rapidly. Following this, an FI schedule was in effect regardless of the instruction chosen. Results: For these 9 participants, response rates during the FI schedule were higher when the instruction to respond slowly had been chosen than when the instruction to respond rapidly had been chosen. Such control by self-instruction was not observed for participants who did not have a history of differential reinforcement of verbal-nonverbal noncorrespondence in this setting. Conclusion: The results suggest that self-instructional control can be classified as a response chain.

Four undergraduates were exposed to a fixed-ratio schedule under an instruction to respond slowly and to a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 5-s schedule under an instruction to respond rapidly. Following this, a fixed-interval schedule was in effect under those same two sets of instructions. For 3 of 4 subjects response rates were higher with the instruction to respond slowly than with the instruction to respond rapidly during the fixed-interval schedule. For the remaining subject, low-rate responding with the instruction to respond rapidly continued during the first 17 reinforcements of the fixed-interval schedule. Such control by instructions was not observed for other subjects exposed only to a fixed-interval schedule, with or without instructions. The results demonstrate that the effect of instructions can be altered by contingencies and suggest that instructions can function as discriminative stimuli.

During biofeedback training, skin temperature changes were analyzed. Ten male undergraduates were asked to increase the temperature of the right index finger under three conditions: rest instructions with simulation feedback (Rest-SF), response-specific instructions without feedback (RI-NF), and response-specific instructions with feedback (RI-F). Skin temperature decreases during the early trials under the RI-F condition continued longer than under the RI-NF condition. Recovery from temperature decreases occurred faster after the repetition of feedback sessions. Skin temperature decreases were not observed under the Rest-SF condition. These results suggest that skin temperature decreases during early training associated with response-specific instructions, feedback, and the novelty of training. The results were also discussed in terms of the techniques which could increase skin temperature. © 1995, The Japanese Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

The effects of feedback on the control of peripheral skin temperature were examined using a tension‐relaxation experiment. Sixteen male undergraduates were assigned to feedback or no‐feedback groups and asked to increase the temperature of the right index finger immediately after decreasing with (in the feedback group) or without (in the no‐feedback group) feedback during 10 training sessions. A no‐feedback transfer session (post‐test) followed these sessions. During the training sessions, skin temperature corresponded to instructions in the feedback group, whereas it did not in the no‐feedback group. Feedback control did not transfer to the no‐feedback condition. These results were discussed in terms of the ceiling‐effect hypothesis in the baseline‐relaxation type experiment and of the subjects' cognitive events, including strategies. Copyright © 1991, Wiley Blackwell. All rights reserved