Skip to main content
Log in

Contingent Magnitude of Reward in a Human Operant IRT >15-S-LH Schedule

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an IRT >15-s schedule, either the number of points was fixed or a lesser number was awarded the later a response occu rred during the 5-s LH. As an additional means for enhancing feedback about performance, a response that exceeded the LH yielded minimal reward (vs. no reinforcer and clock reset), thus allowing differentiation between excessively long IRTs and anticipatory responses. It was expected that the “graded” scale of reward magnitude, coupled with delivery of one point for exceeding the LH, would increase precision of performance. Providing a point for overestimations did increase the percentage of IRTs falling within the LH, and graded magnitude of reward did enhance the proportion of IRTs taking place earlier within the LH. It was suggested that contingent incentive value, as incorporated in the present laboratory paradigms, effectively influenced performance and, in general, represents the nature of contingencies that prevail in the “real world.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BONEM, M., & CROSSMAN, E. K. (1988). Elucidating the effects of reinforcement magnitude. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 348–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • BUSKIST, W., OLIVEIRA-CASTRO, J., & BENNETT, R. (1988). Some effects of response-correlated increases in reinforcer magnitude on human behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 87–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • DAVEY, G. (1981). Animal learning and conditioning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LINDSLEY, O. R. (1962). A behavioral measure of television viewing. Journal of Advertising Research, 2, 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • LIPPMAN, L. G. (1973). Contingent magnitude of reward in human fixed-interval performance. Proceedings, 81st Annual Convention, Apa, 8, 867–868. (Summary)

    Google Scholar 

  • LIPPMAN, L. G. (1977). Approximating “real-world” contingencies in the human operant laboratory. Journal of Biological Psychology, 19, 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • LIPPMAN, L. G. (2000). Contingent incentive value in human operant performance. The Psychological Record, 50, 513–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LIPPMAN, L. G., LEANDER, J. D., & MEYER, M. E. (1970). Human fixed interval performance as related to response effortfulness and to initial point. Journal of General Psychology, 82, 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LOGAN, F. A. (1966). Continuously negatively correlated amount of reward. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 62, 31–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LOVITT, T. C., & ESVELDT, K. A. (1970). The relative effects on math performance of simple- versus multiple-ratio schedules: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 261–270.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • WEARDEN, J. H. (1988). Some neglected problems in the analysis of human operant behavior. In G. Davey & C. Cullen (Eds.), Human operant conditioning and behavior modification. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louis G. Lippman.

Additional information

Kristine Bennington’s assistance with data entry is gratefully acknowledged. A version of this report was presented at the 26th annual convention of ABA, May 26–30, 2000, inWashington DC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lippman, L.G., Leritz, L.E. Contingent Magnitude of Reward in a Human Operant IRT >15-S-LH Schedule. Psychol Rec 52, 89–98 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395416

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395416

Navigation