Response-outcome contingency: Behavioral and judgmental effects of appetitive and aversive outcomes with college students

Abstract In two experiments, positive, negative, and zero response-outcome contingencies were responded to and rated by college students under a free-operant procedure. In Experiment 1, outcomes were either neutral or were associated with point gain. In Experiment 2, subjects were administered different outcome treatments: neutral outcomes, outcomes associated with money gain, or outcomes associated with money loss. In both experiments, subjects' judgments of response-outcome contingency and their operant responses were each strong linear functions of Δ P , the difference between the probability of an outcome given a response and the probability of an outcome given no response. Appetitive and aversive outcomes produced opposite and symmetrical response patterns. In Experiment 1, no differences in ratings occurred with neutral or appetitive outcomes; however, in Experiment 2, more potent appetitve outcomes led to somewhat more extreme ratings than either neutral or aversive outcomes. Increasing outcome probability produced only a slight bias in ratings of noncontingent problems in Experiment 1 and no bias in Experiment 2. Contrary to predictions derived from an analysis of superstitious behavior, increasing outcome probability in noncontingent problems decreased operant responding when outcomes were appetitive and increased operant responding when outcomes were aversive. Trend analyses revealed that Δ P was superior to several other metrics in predicting subjects' estimates of contingency and the behavioral effects of contingency. Operant responding was in closer accord with matching predictions than with maximizing predictions.

[1]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Human covariation judgment: Accuracy and strategy , 1983 .

[2]  D. Erlick,et al.  Perceptual quantification of conditional dependency. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The Judgment of Contingency and the Nature of the Response Alternatives , 1980 .

[4]  H. A. Witkin,et al.  Further studies of perception of the upright when the direction of the force acting on the body is changed. , 1952, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[5]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  JUDGMENT OF CONTINGENCY BETWEEN RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES. , 1965, Psychological monographs.

[6]  J. Smedslund.  THE CONCEPT OF CORRELATION IN ADULTS , 1963 .

[7]  J. Gibbon,et al.  Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Judging response-outcome relations: The role of response-outcome contingency, outcome probability, and method of information presentation , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[9]  David Hume.  A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to introduce the experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects , 1972 .

[10]  L. Abramson,et al.  Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  L. Abramson,et al.  Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? , 1979 .

[12]  L. J. Hammond.  The effect of contingency upon the appetitive conditioning of free-operant behavior. , 1980, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  Martin E. P. Seligman,et al.  Unpredictable and Uncontrollable Aversive Events , 1971 .

[14]  L. Alloy,et al.  Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. , 1984 .

[15]  Jennifer Crocker,et al.  Judgment of Covariation by Social Perceivers , 1981 .

[16]  B. Skinner.  Superstition in the pigeon. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Edward A. Wasserman,et al.  Perception of causal relations in humans: Factors affecting judgments of response-outcome contingencies under free-operant procedures☆ , 1983 .

[18]  C. B. Ferster,et al.  Schedules of reinforcement , 1957 .

[19]  Harriet Shaklee,et al.  Methods of Assessing Strategies for Judging Covariation between Events. , 1983 .

[20]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence , 1983 .

[21]  L. Allan.  A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks , 1980 .

[22]  R. Rescorla,et al.  Effect of response-independent reinforcers during extinction. , 1969 .

[23]  C. L. Morgan.  An introduction to comparative psychology , 1900 .

[24]  A. Tomie,et al.  Correlations between rats' spatial location and intracranial stimulation administration affects rate of acquisition and asymptotic level of time allocation preference in the open field , 1983 .

[25]  H. Gruber,et al.  Effects of experience on perception of causality. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  P. Killeen.  Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability , 1978, Science.