This investigation compared the predictions of two models describing the integration of reinforcement and punishment effects in operant choice. Deluty's (1976) competitive-suppression model (conceptually related to two-factor punishment theories) and de Villiers' (1980) direct-suppression model (conceptually related to one-factor punishment theories) have been tested previously in nonhumans but not at the individual level in humans. Mouse clicking by college students was maintained in a two-alternative concurrent schedule of variable-interval money reinforcement. Punishment consisted of variable-interval money losses. Experiment 1 verified that money loss was an effective punisher in this context. Experiment 2 consisted of qualitative model comparisons similar to those used in previous studies involving nonhumans. Following a no-punishment baseline, punishment was superimposed upon both response alternatives. Under schedule values for which the direct-suppression model, but not the competitive-suppression model, predicted distinct shifts from baseline performance, or vice versa, 12 of 14 individual-subject functions, generated by 7 subjects, supported the direct-suppression model. When the punishment models were converted to the form of the generalized matching law, least-squares linear regression fits for a direct-suppression model were superior to those of a competitive-suppression model for 6 of 7 subjects. In Experiment 3, a more thorough quantitative test of the modified models, fits for a direct-suppression model were superior in 11 of 13 cases. These results correspond well to those of investigations conducted with nonhumans and provide the first individual-subject evidence that a direct-suppression model, evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively, describes human punishment better than a competitive-suppression model. We discuss implications for developing better punishment models and future investigations of punishment in human choice.

No abstract

No abstract

The hypothesis that a penny lost is valued more highly than a penny earned was tested in human choice. Five participants clicked a computer mouse under concurrent variable-interval schedules of monetary reinforcement. In the no-punishment condition, the schedules arranged monetary gain. In the punishment conditions, a schedule of monetary loss was superimposed on one response alternative. Deviations from generalized matching using the free parameters c (sensitivity to reinforcement) and log k (bias) were compared in the no-punishment and punishment conditions. The no-punishment conditions yielded values of log k that approximated zero for all participants, indicating no bias. In the punishment condition, values of log k deviated substantially from zero, revealing a 3-fold bias toward the unpunished alternative. Moreover, the c parameters were substantially smaller in punished conditions. The values for bias and sensitivity under punishment did not change significantly when the measure of net reinforcers (gains minus losses) was applied to the analysis. These results mean that punishment reduced the sensitivity of behavior to reinforcement and biased performance toward the unpunished alternative. We concluded that a single punisher subtracted more value than a single reinforcer added, indicating an asymmetry in the law of effect.