Michael Perone

Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior

Basic Considerations: The Experimental Analysis of Human Operant Behavior K.A. Lattal, M. Perone. The Human Subject C. Pilgrim. Experimental Design and Analysis in the Laboratory Study of Human Operant Behavior A. Baron, M.Perone. Reinforcement and Punishment: Reinforcement: Schedule Performance R.L. Shull, P.S. Lawrence. Choice and Self-Control J.E. Mazur. Negative Reinforcement and Punishment J. Crosbie. Stimulus Control: Stimulus Control Procedures K.J. Saunders, D.C. Williams. Stimulus Equivalence G. Green, R.R. Saunders. Remembering and Forgetting J.T. Wixted. Psychophysics: Methods and Analyses of Signal Detection R.J. Irwin, D. McCarthy. Verbal and Social Behavior: Behavioral Processes of Infants and Young Children P. Weisberg, C. Rovee-Collier. The Verbal Governance of Behavior E. Shimoff, A.C. Catania. The Taxonomy of Verbal Behavior A.C. Catania. New Direction:. Establishment of a Laboratory for Continuous Observation of Human Behavior D.J. Bernstein. Laboratory Methods in Human Behavioral Ecology T.D. Hackenberg. Human Behavioral Pharmacology: An overview of Laboratory Methods S.T. Higgins, J.R. Hughes. Appendix: Ethical Guidelines in Research with Humans (American Psychological Association). 3 Additional Chapters. Index.

Negative effects of positive reinforcement

Procedures classified as positive reinforcement are generally regarded as more desirable than those classified as aversive—those that involve negative reinforcement or punishment. This is a crude test of the desirability of a procedure to change or maintain behavior. The problems can be identified on the basis of theory, experimental analysis, and consideration of practical cases. Theoretically, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement has proven difficult (some would say the distinction is untenable). When the distinction is made purely in operational terms, experiments reveal that positive reinforcement has aversive functions. On a practical level, positive reinforcement can lead to deleterious effects, and it is implicated in a range of personal and societal problems. These issues challenge us to identify other criteria for judging behavioral procedures.

Statistical inference in behavior analysis: Experimental control is better

Statistical inference promises automatic, objective, reliable assessments of data, independent of the skills or biases of the investigator, whereas the single-subject methods favored by behavior analysts often are said to rely too much on the investigator’s subjective impressions, particularly in the visual analysis of data. In fact, conventional statistical methods are difficult to apply correctly, even by experts, and the underlying logic of null-hypothesis testing has drawn criticism since its inception. By comparison, single-subject methods foster direct, continuous interaction between investigator and subject and development of strong forms of experimental control that obviate the need for statistical inference. Treatment effects are demonstrated in experimental designs that incorporate replication within and between subjects, and the visual analysis of data is adequate when integrated into such designs. Thus, single-subject methods are ideal for shaping—and maintaining—the kind of experimental practices that will ensure the continued success of behavior analysis.

Analyzing the Reinforcement Process at the Human Level: Can Application and Behavioristic Interpretation Replace Laboratory Research?

Critics have questioned the value of human operant conditioning experiments in the study of fundamental processes of reinforcement. Contradictory results from human and animal experiments have been attributed to the complex social and verbal history of the human subject. On these grounds, it has been contended that procedures that mimic those conventionally used with animal subjects represent a “poor analytic preparation” for the explication of reinforcement principles. In defending the use of conventional operant methods for human research, we make three points: (a) Historical variables play a critical role in research on processes of reinforcement, regardless of whether the subjects are humans or animals. (b) Techniques are available for detecting, analyzing, and counteracting such historical and extra-experimental influences; these include long-term observations, steady state designs, and, when variables are not amenable to direct control (e.g., age, gender, species), selection of subjects with common characteristics. (c) Other forms of evidence that might be used to validate conditioning principles—applied behavior analysis and behavioristic interpretation—have inherent limitations and cannot substitute for experimental analysis. We conclude that human operant conditioning experiments are essential for the analysis of the reinforcement process at the human level, but caution that their value depends on the extent to which the traditional methods of the experimental analysis of behavior are properly applied.

The place of the human subject in the operant laboratory.

Although laboratory study of human behavior seems an obvious vehicle for strengthening the scientific base of behavior analysis, the place of the human subject within the operant laboratory remains problematic. The prevailing research strategy has been to link principles developed with animals to human affairs, either through interpretation of naturally occurring human behaviors or through application of the principles to the solution of human problems. The paucity of laboratory research on human operant behavior derives from several misconceptions: the possibility that experimental demand characteristics and pre-experimental behavioral dispositions of human subjects contaminate the results; that ethical considerations place undue constraint on research topics and experimental designs; and that uncontrollable variation in subjects’ histories and other relevant personal characteristics prevents observation of reliable functional relations. We argue that these problems do not pose insurmountable obstacles to the experimental analysis of human behavior; that adequate methods of control and analysis are available; and that operant techniques, by emphasizing experimentally imposed contingencies, are well suited for the laboratory study of human behavior.

Experimental Design and Analysis in the Laboratory Study of Human Operant Behavior

Research methods play an essential role in efforts to describe, understand, and control nature. Consensus about appropriate procedures and practices allows researchers to compare and integrate their observations with those of others. On a deeper level, a researcher’s methods express what is regarded as important in the field under study—and what is not. Consider, for example, the earliest experiments of psychologists in which subjects were asked to report on the contents of their consciousness as they engaged in various activities (Boring, 1950, Chapter 16). This “method of introspection” reflected the conviction that the important questions of psychology pertained to the individual’s mental life. Behavior was of interest, but only insofar as it shed light on consciousness and the like. Later psychologists led by Watson and Skinner came to regard behavior as interesting and important in its own right. This emphasis is reflected in the label attached to the methods originated in Skinner’s seminal work on operant conditioning in rats (Skinner, 1938) and pigeons (Ferster & Skinner 1957): the experimental analysis of behavior.

Effects of past and upcoming response-force requirements on fixed-ratio pausing

Four rats obtained food by pressing a lever 30 times in each component of a two-component multiple schedule. Across conditions, the force required to press the lever was increased in one component and held constant in the other. Pausing at the outset of each component was controlled by both the past and upcoming force requirements: Pauses were longer when the upcoming requirement was high and this effect was intensified when the past requirement was low. In concert with previous research, the results support the general proposition that behavior is disrupted by abrupt, discriminable transitions from favorable to unfavorable schedule conditions, across a range of subjects and operational definitions of favorability.

Variable interval schedules of timeout from avoidance: Effects of ethanol, naltrexone, and CGS 8216

Four rats were trained on concurrent schedules of shock avoidance and timeout from avoidance, where responses on one lever postponed shock and responses on another lever occasionally (VI 45 sec schedule) produced a 2-min timeout during which the avoidance schedule was suspended. These procedures maintained stable rates of responding on both levers, providing a baseline for studying the effects of drugs on behavior under different types of aversive control (shock avoidance and timeout from avoidance). In the first experiment the effects of ethanol (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 g/kg) and an opiate antagonist, naltrexone (1 mg/kg) were assessed alone and in combination. Ethanol produced a dose-dependent decrease in avoidance characterized by increased shock rates and decreased response rates. At the same time, however, responding on the timeout lever generally increased relative to avoidance lever rates. All of these effects were largely confined to the early parts of the 2-hr session, when blood-ethanol levels were relatively high. Naltrexone had no effect on performances and did not interact with ethanol. In a second experiment, the effects of the benzodiazepine antagonist CGS 8216 were studied alone, and in combination with ethanol. CGS 8216 (5 mg/kg) generally disrupted both avoidance and timeout responding but did not reverse ethanol actions.

Behavioral functions of stimuli signaling transitions across rich and lean schedules of reinforcement.

On multiple fixed-ratio schedules, pausing is extended at the start of a component ending in a small reinforcer (a lean component) but only when this component follows a component ending in a large reinforcer (a rich component). In two experiments, we assessed whether a stimulus correlated with a lean component is aversive and how its function is affected by the preceding component. In Experiment 1, pigeons responded on mixed fixed-ratio schedules ending in large or small reinforcers. Observing responses converted the mixed schedule to a multiple one by producing a stimulus correlated with the current component. Overall, the lean stimulus did not suppress observing, suggesting that it was not sufficiently aversive. In Experiment 2, an escape procedure was used, and pigeons could convert a multiple schedule to a mixed one by pecking a key to remove the discriminative stimuli. Pigeons escaped from the lean-schedule stimulus more than they did from the rich one. For two pigeons, this effect was enhanced when a rich component preceded the lean stimulus. The results indicate that a stimulus correlated with the leaner of two reinforcement schedules can acquire aversive functions, but observing and escape procedures may differ in their abilities to detect this effect.

On the impact of human operant research: Asymmetrical patterns of cross-citation between human and nonhuman research.

Reactions to published accounts of research with human subjects, as well as research with nonhuman subjects, were assessed by examining citations in several samples of empirical articles in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. A stable, asymmetrical pattern emerged: Nonhuman research was cited in both human and nonhuman articles, but human research was cited primarily in human articles. Thus, human operant research appears to have had little influence on the nonhuman research which constitutes the bulk of the experimental analysis of behavior. Interpretation of this lack of impact depends on the functions one envisions for human research, several of which are discussed.