A male paedophile offender chose between pairs of sexual stimulus classes in a two-operandum procedure with reinforcement arranged according to concurrent variable-interval variable-interval schedules. Condition 1 involved choice between slides of women and slides of men; condition 2, slides of men vs. slides of children; and condition 3, slides of women vs. slides of children. On the assumption that the subject matched his ratios of responses and times on the two operanda to reinforcer value, estimates were obtained from the data in conditions 1 and 2 of the values of slides of women and of children relative to slides of men. These yielded predictions of the relative allocations of responses and of time in condition 3. The predicted and obtained outcomes were similar. The results support the use of matching-based scaling of reinforcer values in the prediction of choice between qualitatively different reinforcers and extend the application to a human subject, the two-operandum procedure, and sexual stimuli.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumW. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: bias and under-matching.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour22, 231–42.
2.
BaumW. M. (1975). Time allocation in human vigilance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour23, 45–53.
3.
BaumW. M.RachlinH. C. (1969). Choice as time allocation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour12, 861–74.
4.
BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.BevanP. (1976). Behavior of humans in variable-interval schedules of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour26, 135–41.
5.
BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.BevanP. (1979). The effect of punishment on free operant choice behaviour in humans.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour31, 71–81.
6.
BrownsteinA. J. (1971). Concurrent schedules of response-independent reinforcement: duration of a reinforcing stimulus.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour15, 211–4.
7.
CataniaA. C. (1963). Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour6, 299–300.
8.
CataniaA. C. (1966). Concurrent operants. In HonigW. K. (Ed.), Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and ApplicationEnglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
9.
ChungS-H. (1965). Effects of delayed reinforcement in a concurrent situation.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour8, 439–44.
10.
ChungS-H.HerrnsteinR. J. (1967). Choice and delay of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour10, 67–74.
11.
CongerR.KilleenP. (1974). Use of concurrent operants in small group research.Pacific Sociological Review17, 399–416.
DavidsonD.MarschakJ. (1959). In ChurchmanC. W.RatooshP. (Eds), Measurement: Definitions and TheoriesNew York: Wiley.
14.
de VilliersP. (1977). Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In HonigW. K.StaddonJ. E. R. (Eds), Handbook of Operant BehaviourEnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall233–287.
15.
FarleyJ. F.FantinoE. (1978). The symmetrical law of effect and the matching relation in choice behaviour.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour29, 37–60.
16.
FindleyJ. D. (1958). Preference and switching under concurrent scheduling.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour1, 123–44.
17.
HerrnsteinR. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour4, 267–72.
18.
HerrnsteinR. J. (1970). On the law of effect.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour13, 243–66.
19.
HollardV.DavisonM. C. (1971). Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour16, 375–80.
20.
IglauerC.WoodsJ. H. (1974). Concurrent performances: Reinforcement by different doses of intravenous cocaine in rhesus monkeys.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour22, 179–96.
21.
KilleenP. (1972). The matching law.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour17, 489–95.
22.
LobbB.DavisonM. C. (1975). Performance in concurrent interval schedules: a systematic replication.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour24, 191–7.
23.
MillerH. L. (1976). Matching-based hedonic scaling in the pigeon.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour26, 335–45.
24.
MyersD. L.MyersL. E. (1977). Undermatching: a reappraisal of performance on concurrent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour25, 203–14.
NevinJ. A. (1969). Interval reinforcement of choice behaviour in discrete trials.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour12, 875–85.
27.
NevinJ. A. (1971). Rates and patterns of responding with concurrent fixed-interval and variable-interval reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour16, 241–7.
28.
RachlinH. C. (1971). On the tautology of the matching law.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour15, 249–51.
29.
RuddleH.BradshawC. M.SzabadiE.BevanP. (1979). Behaviour of humans in concurrent schedules programmed on spatially separated operanda.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology31, 509–17.
30.
SchmittD. R. (1974). Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour21, 409–19.
31.
SchroederS. R.HollandJ. G. (1969). Reinforcement of eye movement with concurrent schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour12, 897–903.
32.
ShullR. L.PliskoffS. S. (1967). Changeover delay and concurrent schedules: some effects on relative performance measures.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour10, 517–27.
33.
StubbsD. A.PliskoffS. S. (1969). Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour12, 887–95.
34.
TodorovJ. C. (1973). Interaction of frequency and magnitude of reinforcement on concurrent performances.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour19, 451–8.
35.
TrevittA. J.DavisonM. C.WilliamsR. J. (1972). Performance in concurrent interval schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour17, 369–74.
