Assessing negative reinforcement through simultaneous observing and committed concurrent progressive-ratio procedures: Preliminary investigations

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Benjamin N. Witts, Jennifer L. Bruzek
{"title":"Assessing negative reinforcement through simultaneous observing and committed concurrent progressive-ratio procedures: Preliminary investigations","authors":"Benjamin N. Witts,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Bruzek","doi":"10.1002/jeab.913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Efficient methods for assessing the relative aversiveness of stimuli are sparse and underresearched. Having access to efficient procedures that can identify aversive stimuli would benefit researchers and practitioners alike. Across three experiments, 13 participants helped to pilot, refine, and test two approaches to identifying negative reinforcers. The first experiment presented two conditions, one in which computerized button pressing started or stopped one of two recorded infant cries (or silence, when the control button was selected). Choices were presented either in a modified observing-response procedure (i.e., simultaneous observing) or in a modified progressive-ratio procedure (i.e., committed concurrent progressive ratio; CCPR). Results were favorable though not conclusive on their own. A second experiment, using more distinct stimuli (i.e., one likely aversive, one likely not aversive), replicated the first, and clearer results emerged. Finally, the third experiment tested the stimuli from the second experiment in a CCPR arrangement where sound was terminated contingent on responding and idiosyncratic negative reinforcement hierarchies emerged. The utility of these two procedures is discussed, and future work that addresses the limitations is outlined.</p>","PeriodicalId":17411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeab.913","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Efficient methods for assessing the relative aversiveness of stimuli are sparse and underresearched. Having access to efficient procedures that can identify aversive stimuli would benefit researchers and practitioners alike. Across three experiments, 13 participants helped to pilot, refine, and test two approaches to identifying negative reinforcers. The first experiment presented two conditions, one in which computerized button pressing started or stopped one of two recorded infant cries (or silence, when the control button was selected). Choices were presented either in a modified observing-response procedure (i.e., simultaneous observing) or in a modified progressive-ratio procedure (i.e., committed concurrent progressive ratio; CCPR). Results were favorable though not conclusive on their own. A second experiment, using more distinct stimuli (i.e., one likely aversive, one likely not aversive), replicated the first, and clearer results emerged. Finally, the third experiment tested the stimuli from the second experiment in a CCPR arrangement where sound was terminated contingent on responding and idiosyncratic negative reinforcement hierarchies emerged. The utility of these two procedures is discussed, and future work that addresses the limitations is outlined.

通过同步观察和承诺同步累进比率程序评估负强化:初步调查
评估刺激物相对厌恶性的有效方法很少,而且研究不足。如果能获得高效的程序来识别厌恶性刺激,研究人员和从业人员都将受益匪浅。在三个实验中,13 名参与者帮助试验、改进和测试了两种识别负强化物的方法。第一个实验提供了两个条件,其中一个条件是电脑按下按钮开始或停止录制的两种婴儿哭声中的一种(或选择控制按钮时保持沉默)。选择是在修改后的观察-反应程序(即同步观察)或修改后的累进比率程序(即承诺并发累进比率;CCPR)中呈现的。结果是好的,但本身并不具有决定性。第二个实验使用了更多不同的刺激物(即一个可能是厌恶性刺激,一个可能不是厌恶性刺激),重复了第一个实验,得出了更明确的结果。最后,第三个实验在 CCPR 安排中测试了第二个实验中的刺激物,在该安排中,声音的终止取决于反应,并出现了特异的负强化等级。本文讨论了这两项实验的实用性,并概述了解决这些局限性的未来工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is primarily for the original publication of experiments relevant to the behavior of individual organisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信