doi: 10.1901/jaba.2006.109-04

Schedules of Reinforcement: When to use positive and negative reinforcement Published on June 2, 2018 June 2, 2018 by Dr. Lindsay Emmerson I’m back at my keyboard after a few weeks’ hiatus during which I spent all my free time landscaping.
If the horse trainer chose to employ a variable ratio schedule of reinforcement, then, like the slot machine, the reward would come based on an average number of responses. So a schedule based on an average reward every 5 jumps might yield a peppermint after jumps number 1, 4, and 10 (the average of 1, 4, and 10 is 5).
Feb 04, 2019 Think about a slot machine. Casinos have perfected the use of a variable schedule of reinforcement with their human customers. You insert a coin and push the button, but you don’t win every time. If you did, the casino would go out of business pretty quick.
Jan 21, 2016 FEEDBACK: A variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement is based on an average number of responses between reinforcers, but there is great variability around that average. Slot machines, roulette wheels, horse races, and state lottery games pay on a variable-ratio reinforcement schedule, an extremely effective means of controlling behavior.

PMID: 17020215

Henry S Roane, Action Editor

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Mar 19, 2008 Variable-ratio schedule - reinforcement does not required a fixed or set number of responses before reinforcement can be obtained. Like slot machines in the casinos. Fixed-interval schedule.

The present experiment investigated the impact of contextually trained discriminations on gambling behavior. Nine recreational slot-machine players were initially exposed to concurrently available computerized slot machines that were each programmed on random-ratio schedules of reinforcement and differed only in color. All participants distributed responding equally across the two slot machines. A conditional discrimination procedure was then used to teach the contextual cues representing the arbitrary relations of “greater than” and “less than.” Following contextual cue training, participants were reexposed to the concurrent slot-machine task. After training of the contextual cues, a higher proportion of responses were made to the slot machine that shared formal properties (i.e., color) with the contextual cue representing “greater than.”

Keywords: choice, gambling, self-rules, verbal behavior

During the past 20 years there has been a growth in the number of states that allow legalized gambling (Ghezzi, Lyons, & Dixon, 2000). There has also been an increase from 1% to 5% of the United States population who are classified as problem or pathological gamblers (Harvard Mental Health Letter, 1996). Explanations as to why people develop into problem gamblers include sensation seeking and arousal (), genetic predispositions to gambling (), and the presence of specific personality disorders (). To date, however, the impact of behavior analysis on understanding the development of gambling behavior has been minimal (see Weatherly, 2004, for a discussion).

Understanding gambling from a behavior-analytic perspective poses a unique challenge because animal models of gambling are nonexistent. Furthermore, there are several legal and ethical issues surrounding optimal research settings and participants. Commercial gaming establishments offer a variety of games (e.g., slot machines, video poker, roulette, blackjack) from which gambling behavior can be evaluated. However, these games are designed and government regulated to be purely probabilistic (i.e., based on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement). As a result, field research in which variables of interest (e.g., reinforcement magnitude, density, delays to reinforcement, or odds of winning) are manipulated and in which participants wager actual currency at a casino game are legally prohibited.

An alternative to studying gambling in commercial gaming establishments might involve the use of controllable and modifiable casino-like games (e.g., MacLin & Dixon, 2004; MacLin, Dixon & Hayes, 1999) in which individuals who gamble recreationally can participate. In one such laboratory investigation, examined the degree of discounting of delayed consequences by pathological gamblers and matched-control nongamblers. Choices between hypothetically available amounts of money that differed in size (e.g., $20, $1,000) and delay (e.g., 1 week, 1 year) were presented. Overall, results showed that gamblers discounted the delayed rewards more quickly in a monotonic fashion than did matched-control participants.

One variable of interest in the study of gambling is predicting gamblers' choices among alternatives (e.g., to play one game or another). Such situations may be conceptualized as a concurrent-operants paradigm. Choice on concurrent schedules of reinforcement is rather predictable by understanding the reinforcement rates and magnitudes associated with each response option (Davison & McCarthy, 1988). Such response patterns often occur as the result of extensive exposure to the programmed contingencies, something that rarely happens when a person gambles. By contrast, it is often the case that a gambler may never experience the contingencies of winning the jackpot on a given slot machine, yet they may favor that machine over concurrently available machines with similar programmed contingencies.

Although some choice responding of gamblers may be due to superstitious reinforcement (Skinner, 1953), verbal behavior also appears to have an impact on gamblers' choices, risk levels, and duration of game play. For example, roulette players may choose to wager more chips on specific options (i.e., certain numbers on a roulette board) that have no impact on game outcome if given inaccurate rules stating strategies for winning. Dixon (2000) found that preferences for such game options were reduced via delivery of accurate rules about the game, but for some players even such rules were insufficient to remove “illogical” choice making. Gamblers also tend to play games with poor probabilities of winning for longer periods of time when given inaccurate rules often found in the casino (e.g., “you have to play if you are going to win” and “the best way to win is to keep playing”) (Dixon, Hayes, & Aban, 2000). Although these studies illustrate how rules can alter gambling behavior, they do not aid in understanding how gamblers generate such rules.

The concept of a self-rule (Skinner, 1972) has been discussed as the product of relational responding to various stimuli and their discriminative functions (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001). This conceptualization of a self-rule suggests that initially neutral or novel stimuli may acquire certain functions through direct training or transfers of functional control in the absence of differential reinforcement. For example, if a verbally competent person is trained by direct reinforcement that A is better than B and B is better than C, the person will be able to derive that C is worse than A in the absence of any direct reinforcement. Furthermore, contextual cues or higher order conditional discriminations may make the functional relations among stimuli transient (i.e., under additional discriminative control; Saunders & Williams, 1998). For example, in a matching-to-sample task, a person might be presented with a sample stimulus of the numeral 5 and given comparison response options of the numerals 8, 2, and 4. Depending on the contextual cue present, differential reinforcement might be provided for selecting the comparison stimulus that is “better than” (selecting 8) or “worse than” (selecting 2).

The purpose of the current study was to develop a set of self-rules that would influence response allocation among concurrently available gambling options. First, we examined the degree to which recreational slot-machine players would match their responses to concurrently available random-ratio (RR) simulated slot machines that differed only by color. We then attempted to alter or enhance initial response allocations through the establishment of “greater than” and “less than” relations that were associated with specific contextual stimuli in a conditional discrimination procedure.

Method

Participants

Nine undergraduate students participated in the experiment. All participants were at least 18 years of age and reported occasionally having played slot machines at regional casinos.

Apparatus and Setting

Participation took place at a desk in a small room (3 m by 3.5 m) containing various furniture and equipment. A c

Slot Machines Operate On What Schedule Of Reinforcement