Predicting and Testing a Contemporary Quantitative Model of Punishment Open Access

Abstract

In this dissertation, five novel quantitative models of punishment based on the generalized matching law (GML; Baum, 1974) were developed. The descriptive accuracies of these models were tested against one another and against the GML in three experiments using information criteria. Experiment 1 entailed a reanalysis of previously collected live organism data. None of the punishment models were supported over the GML. It was hypothesized that this result was likely due to the small number of data points used to fit each model. Thus, two additional experiments were performed using datasets with many more data points per fit. Experiment 2 utilized a well-regarded computational theory of operant behavior known as the Evolutionary Theory of Behavior Dynamics (ETBD; McDowell, 2004). Experiment 3 was a replication of Experiment 2 using human participants who worked on a recently developed rapid-acquisition procedure called a Procedure for Rapidly Establishing Steady-State Behavior (PRESS-B; Klapes et al. 2020). These experiments initially resulted in divergent conclusions: the ETBD predicted that the GML was the superior model, while data generated by PRESS-B showed that a punishment model based on the concatenated GML (cGML; Davison & McCarthy, 1988) was superior to the GML and the other punishment models. Experiment 2 was found to have relatively weak punishing contingencies, however, which was the likely source of the discrepant conclusions. Thus, the cGML-based punishment model is presumed to be the best contemporary quantitative model of punishment.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. The Matching Law.……………………………………………………………………...1

1.2. Matching Law-Based Punishment Models………………………………………...5

2. Developing Contemporary Matching-Law-Based Punishment Models

2.1. Model Constraints……………………………………………………………………...20

2.2. Building the Candidate Models.……………………………………………….…….21

2.3. A Theoretical Comparison of the New Models…………………………….……..27

3. Experiment 1: Fitting New Models to Available Data

3.1. Methods……………………………………………………………………………..…...29

3.2. Results………………………………………………………………………………...….30

3.3. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….....31

4. Experiment 2: An ETBD Prediction of Model Superiority

4.1. Methods……………………………………………………………………………….....38

4.2. Results………………………………………………………………………………...….39

4.3. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….....40

5. Experiment 3: A Test of the ETBD Prediction Using Human Participants

5.1. Methods……………………………………………………………………………….....45

5.2. Results…………………………………………………………………………………....47

5.3. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..…...48

6. General Discussion

6.1. Failure to Replicate the ETBD Qualitative Prediction with PRESS-B….…...50

6.2. Future Directions……………………………………………………………………….52

6.3. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....55

7. References…………………………………………………………………………….......56

8. Tables and Figures

Table 1……………………………………………………………………………………......66

Table 2……………………………………………………………………………….…..…...67

Table 3…………………………………………………………………………………...…...68

Table 4……………………………………………………………………………….…..…...69

Table 5……………………………………………………………………………….…..…...70

Table 6……………………………………………………………………………….…….....71

Figure 1…………………………………………………………………………...……..……72

Figure 2………...………………………………………………………………………..……73

Figure 3…………………….………………………………………………………………....74

Figure 4………………………….………………………………………………………..…..75

9. Appendix A…………………………………………………………………..…….…..…76

About this Dissertation

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Laney Graduate School
Department	Psychology
Subfield / Discipline	Clinical Psychology
Degree	Ph.D.
Submission	Dissertation
Language	English
Research Field	Psychology, Behavioral Psychology, Experimental
Keyword	information criteria punishment matching law model development
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Jack J McDowell, Emory University
Committee Members	Michael T. Treadway, Emory University M. Jackson Marr, Georgia Institute of Technology Darryl B. Neill, Emory University Phillip Wolff, Emory University

Last modified

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	Predicting and Testing a Contemporary Quantitative Model of Punishment ()	2020-07-09 14:50:00 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	Figure 2 (Example game-play of PRESS-B)	2020-07-09 14:50:05 -0400	Press to Select an action Download