Ben A. Williams

Evidenced-based medicine views random-assignment clinical trials as the gold standard of evidence. Because patient populations are heterogeneous, large numbers of patients must be studied in order to achieve statistically significant results, but the means or medians of these large samples have weak predictive validity for individual patients. Further, the logic of random-assignment clinical trials allows only the inference that some subset of patients benefits from the treatment. Post-hoc analysis is therefore necessary to identify those patients. Otherwise, many patients may receive treatments that are useless and potentially harmful.

Pigeons were presented with a concurrent‐chains schedule in which the total time to primary reinforcement was equated for the two alternatives (VI 30 s VI 60 s vs. VI 60 s VI 30 s). In one set of conditions, the terminal links were signaled by the same stimulus, and in another set of conditions they were signaled by different stimuli. Choice was in favor of the shorter terminal link when the terminal links were differentially signaled but in favor of the shorter initial link (and longer terminal link) when the terminal links shared the same stimulus. Preference reversed regularly with reversals of the stimulus condition and was unrelated to the discrimination between the two terminal links during the nondifferential stimulus condition. The present results suggest that the relative value of the terminal‐link stimuli and the relative rate of conditioned reinforcer presentation are important influences on choice behavior, and that models of conditioned reinforcement need to include both factors.

Despite its avowed goal of understanding individual behavior, the field of behavior analysis has largely ignored the determinants of consistent differences in level of performance among individuals. The present article discusses major findings in the study of individual differences in intelligence from the conceptual framework of a functional analysis of behavior. In addition to general intelligence, we discuss three other major aspects of behavior in which individuals differ: speed of processing, working memory, and the learning of three‐term contingencies. Despite recent progress in our understanding of the relations among these aspects of behavior, numerous issues remain unresolved. Researchers need to determine which learning tasks predict individual differences in intelligence and which do not, and then identify the specific characteristics of these tasks that make such prediction possible.

Superconditioning is said to occur when learning an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) is facilitated by pairing the CS with the US in the presence of a previously established conditioned inhibitor. Previous demonstrations of superconditioning have been criticized because their control conditions have allowed alternative interpretations. Using a within-subjects autoshaping procedure, the present study unambiguously demonstrated superconditioning. The results support the view that superconditioning is the symmetric opposite of blocking.

Behavioral contrast is defined as a change in response rate during a stimulus associated with a constant reinforcement schedule, in inverse relation to the rates of reinforcement in the surrounding stimulus conditions. Contrast has at least two functionally separable components: local contrast, which occurs after component transition, and molar contrast. Local contrast contributes to molar contrast under some conditions, but not generally. Molar contrast is due primarily to anticipatory contrast. However, anticipatory contrast with respect to response rate has been shown to be inversely related to stimulus preference, which challenges the widely held view that contrast effects reflect changes in stimulus value owing to the reinforcement context. More recent data demonstrate that the inverse relation between response rate and preference with respect to anticipatory contrast is due to Pavlovian contingencies embedded in anticipatory contrast procedures. When those contingencies are weakened, anticipatory contrast and stimulus preference are positively related, thus reaffirming the view that the reinforcing effectiveness of a constant schedule is inversely related to the value of the context of reinforcement in which it occurs. The underlying basis of how the context of reinforcement controls reinforcement value remains uncertain, although clear parallels exist between contrast and the effects of contingency in both Pavlovian and operant conditioning.

Traditional two-factor theory is supported by parallels in the clinical literature. Theoretical problems with two-factor theory are obviated by the role of safety signals, which serve as positive conditioned reinforcers and retard the extinction of conditioned fear.