Dougherty D M, Cherek D R
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas, Houston 77030.
J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Jul;62(1):133-48. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-133.
In the first two experiments, subjects' choices to earn points (exchangeable for money) either by competing with a fictitious opponent or by not competing were studied. Buskist, Barry, Morgan, and Rossi's (1984) competitive fixed-interval schedule was modified to include a second response option, a noncompetitive fixed-interval schedule. After choosing to enter either option, the opportunity for reinforcers became available after the fixed-interval's duration had elapsed. Under the no-competition condition, points were always available after the interval had elapsed. Under the competition condition, points were available based on a predetermined probability of delivery. Experiments 1 and 2 examined how reinforcer probabilities and reinforcer magnitudes affected subjects' choices to compete. Several general conclusions can be made about the results: (a) Strong preferences to compete were observed at high and moderate reinforcer probabilities; (b) competing was observed even at very low reinforcer probabilities; (c) response rates were always higher in the competition component than in the no-competition component; and (d) response rates and choices to compete were insensitive to reinforcer-magnitude manipulations. In Experiment 3, the social context of this choice schedule was removed to determine whether the high levels of competing observed in the first two experiments were due to a response preference engendered by the social context provided by the experimenters through instructions. In contrast to the first two experiments, these subjects preferred the 60-s fixed-interval schedule (formerly the no-competition option), indicating that the instructions themselves were responsible for the preference to compete. This choice paradigm may be useful to future researchers interested in the effects of other independent variables (e.g., drugs, social context, instructions) on competitive behavior.
在前两个实验中，研究了受试者通过与虚构对手竞争或不竞争来赚取积分（可兑换金钱）的选择。布斯基斯特、巴里、摩根和罗西（1984年）的竞争性固定间隔时间表被修改，纳入了第二个反应选项，即非竞争性固定间隔时间表。在选择进入任一选项后，强化物的机会在固定间隔时间过去后变得可用。在无竞争条件下，间隔时间过去后积分总是可用的。在竞争条件下，积分根据预先确定的给予概率可用。实验1和实验2考察了强化物概率和强化物大小如何影响受试者竞争的选择。关于结果可以得出几个一般性结论：（a）在高和中等强化物概率下观察到强烈的竞争偏好；（b）即使在非常低的强化物概率下也观察到竞争；（c）竞争部分的反应率总是高于无竞争部分；（d）反应率和竞争选择对强化物大小操纵不敏感。在实验3中，去除了这种选择时间表的社会背景，以确定在前两个实验中观察到的高竞争水平是否是由于实验者通过指示提供的社会背景所产生的反应偏好。与前两个实验不同，这些受试者更喜欢60秒的固定间隔时间表（以前的无竞争选项），这表明指示本身导致了竞争偏好。这种选择范式可能对未来对其他自变量（如药物、社会背景、指示）对竞争行为影响感兴趣的研究人员有用。
