Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._1

rates that seem to follow the business cycle. Some analysts believe that bankruptcy is a lagging indicator; that is, some months after an economic slowdown, bankruptcies begin to rise as laid-off workers run out of resources or small business owners find they cannot remain in business.

Each bankruptcy affects at least one household, and one estimate puts the average number of creditors affected at eighteen. Some creditors, such as credit card issuers, are affected by numerous bankruptcies within a single year. Some bankruptcies initiate a chain of events: The bankruptcy of a single business may lead later to the bankruptcies of employees who lost their jobs, of creditors whose accounts receivable were never received, and of suppliers who could not find new customers. Creditors often argue that the rising numbers of bankruptcies cause them costs that are then passed on to all consumers in the form of higher interest rates.

A bankruptcy may be filed either by a single individual or jointly by a couple. Since the early 1980s, there has been a sharp increase in the proportion of bankruptcies filed by adult women. Several studies indicate between one-third and one-half of bankruptcies are now filed by women.

Over half of bankrupt debtors are between the ages of thirty and fifty. Their mean occupational prestige is approximately the same as that of the labor force as a whole, and their educational level is also similar to that of the adult population. The proportion of immigrants in the bankrupt population is approximately the same as their proportion in the general population. There are conflicting

findings about the extent to which minority populations are overrepresented or underrepresented in bankruptcy. Despite their educational and occupational levels, however, the median incomes of bankrupt debtors are less than half the median income of the general population.

CAUSES OF BANKRUPTCY

Much of what social scientists know about bankruptcy comes from reviewing the bankruptcy petitions filed in courts, and from interviewing judges, lawyers, clerks, and others who work in the bankruptcy courts. Information about the causes of bankruptcy, however, typically comes from interviews with the debtors themselves. Because many

debtors are ashamed of their bankruptcies, and because American debtor populations are geographically mobile, interview studies often have somewhat low response rates. For learning the cause of a bankruptcy, however, there is probably no substitute for asking the debtor.

Debtors often report ‘‘inability to manage money’’ or ‘‘too much debt’’ as the reason for their bankruptcy. In probing a little deeper, however, researchers have found five major issues involved in a large fraction of all bankruptcies: job problems, divorce and related family problems, medical problems, homeowner problems, and credit card debts.

Many debtors have been laid off completely, lost overtime, or had their hours of work or their pay rates reduced. Some debtors have had long periods of unemployment; others have lost their jobs because of the closure of the plant or the store where they worked. The job loss causes an unplanned loss of income, and this fact in turn often creates a mismatch between the petitioner’s debt obligations and the ability to meet those obligations.

During the recession of the early 1990s, when many industries were downsizing and otherwise restructuring their labor forces, about two in every

five bankrupt debtors reported a job-related reason for bankruptcy.

Divorce and other family problems may result in lower incomes for the two ex-spouses (especially the ex-wife). Moreover, in most divorce settlements the debts are also divided, and the debt burden may be too great for one of the ex-spouses.

Sometimes an ex-spouse will file bankruptcy knowing that any jointly-incurred debts discharged by the bankrupt spouse will have to be paid by the other ex-spouse. Although alimony and child support cannot be discharged as debts, for custodial parents who do not receive the payments the

financial consequences may be grave. Similarly, for parents who must make the payments, a reduction in other debts may make the payments more possible. Finally, it is harder to support two households on the income that used to support just one household. For all of these reasons, the recently divorced may find themselves in bankruptcy.

Medical problems may lead to higher debts if the debtor is uninsured or if insurance is insufficient to pay for needed medical procedures, pharmaceuticals, and professional services. Medical

problems may at the same time lead to lower incomes if a person is too ill or injured to work. Either way, a spell of illness or an automobile accident may push a previously solvent person into a situation in which debts are no longer manageable. Medical problems rise in frequency as a reported cause of bankruptcy for adults aged

fifty-five to sixty-four, years in which medical problems may increase but before Medicare coverage becomes available.

Earlier efforts to examine medical debts as an indicator of the causes of bankruptcy showed medical debt to be a fairly insignificant cause, whereas direct interviews of debtors are more likely to reveal medical issues as causative. There are reasons to believe that the debt indicators underestimate this reason for bankruptcy. Insurance will often pay medical providers but will not replace income, so that debts to hospitals or physicians might not appear in the records even though the illness or injury is nevertheless the reason that the debtor cannot repay debts. Moreover, some medical providers accept credit cards, so that the medical expenses are hidden within credit card debt. And some debtors will make efforts to pay off their medical creditors first for fear of being denied services. On the other hand, there may be some overestimate of the impact of medical issues in interviews, because respondents may believe a medical reason may be seen as a socially acceptable cause for bankruptcy.

Bankrupt debtors are somewhat less likely to be homeowners than the general population, but a substantial number of homeowners file for bankruptcy, often to prevent the foreclosure of their mortgage. Chapter 13 permits homeowners to pay the arrearages (missed payments) on their mortgage along with their current payments. Home ownership may also be an issue for a worker who is transferred to a different city and buys a second home before the first home is sold. Equity is the portion of the home’s value for which the homeowner has made payment. The recent proliferation of home-equity loans, which allow homeowners to use the equity in their homes as collateral, has also put homes at risk even if the payments on the principal mortgage are current. Small business owners are often required to use their homes as collateral for business loans, which means that a failing business may also entail the threat of the family losing its home. Home-equity lending is

being extended to a number of other situations, including college loans and credit cards, with the result that many Americans are risking their homes, often without realizing it.

A final reason for bankruptcy is large credit card debts, often at high rates of interest. Allpurpose cards (such as Visa, MasterCard, and American Express) are now used for many consumption purposes, including payment of federal income taxes, payment of college tuition, and many goods and services, with the result that credit card debt is assumed for many different purposes. Most ordinary living expenses can now be charged with a credit card, so that interpreting a high credit card debt is difficult. High rates of interest accelerate the credit card debt quickly. Credit card debt is the fastest-growing reason for bankruptcy being given by debtors.

BANKRUPTCY MYTHS

Empirical studies have refuted a number of myths about bankruptcy. One such myth is that some people file for bankruptcy again and again. Several studies have been unable to confirm this myth, but there are a number of people who are unsuccessful at Chapter 13 who eventually file Chapter 7.

These people have not really repeated bankruptcy, because they have never received a discharge from their debts in their Chapter 13 filings.

Another myth is that large numbers of bankrupt debtors have high debts because of alcoholism, drug abuse, and gambling. Although most empirical studies have identified a few isolated cases in which one of these problems plays a role, the great increase in bankruptcy numbers cannot be attributed to a great increase in addictive behavior.

A third myth is that there is widespread abuse of the bankruptcy process because many debtors could allegedly pay all of their debts. Most studies of the repayment possibilities for the debtors find that the debtors are unable to repay their debts, even if their families live on very modest budgets (such as the model low-income budget of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). The few studies that have found debtors able to repay have often eliminated from repayment whole categories of debt that the debtors themselves cannot eliminate. There are, however, documented cases of fraudulent or

abusive use of bankruptcy, some of which are prosecuted by the government as criminal matters.

STRUCTURAL SOURCES OF BANKRUPTCY

Several changes in American financial life have contributed to the imbalance of debt with income and may have increased the numbers of people who file for bankruptcy.

Consumer credit has been available for decades, principally as a means to help households

finance a large purchase over a period of time.

Individual sellers extended credit, often on the basis of personal knowledge of the borrower and the borrower’s ability to repay. Later, banks, credit unions, and personal finance companies helped finance the purchase of homes, cars, and small appliances. These institutional arrangements offered more protection to the seller and made a personal acquaintanceship less important in the lending decision.

The development of credit cards, with preapproved credit limits, allowed consumers to buy a large variety of goods or services on credit, not just large or expensive items. It was not just the invention of the credit card, however, but some later developments in its use that have changed consumer financial patterns in a way that may have influenced higher bankruptcy rates.

First, beginning in the late 1970s, most states repealed their laws making usury an offense, and

Congress made state usury laws largely ineffective.

Usury, the charging of excessive interest, was formerly regulated by the states, most of which set limits on the maximum amount of interest that could be charged to borrowers. With the repeal of these laws, high rates of interest—some as high as

20 percent or more—could legally be charged. Prior to this time, such high rates of interest were usually defined as criminal and were associated with loan-sharking and the lending practices of organized crime.

Second, credit cards became a major profit center for many banks, especially because of the high interest rates that could be charged. Marketing of credit cards mushroomed. New markets, including relatively low-income families, became the targets of sophisticated mail and telephone campaigns. Even though many of the families might not be able to repay everything they charged,

the large interest payments made the lending profitable. Credit cards are now extensively marketed to young people, especially college students, who are relatively unfamiliar with financial matters.

Third, credit devices proliferated to include gold and platinum levels, cash advances, and many other features that were both profitable to card issuers and attractive to card holders. Sometimes card holders did not understand how these features worked; for example, many card holders did not realize that there is no grace period for repaying a cash advance, and the interest rate on a cash advance is often higher than the rate for purchases.

Fourth, merchants who accepted credit cards enjoyed increased business because the buyers did not have to carry a large supply of cash. Advertising by stores and restaurants increasingly emphasized the acceptability of credit cards, so that the advertising for goods and services reinforced the advertising of the credit card issuers. Meanwhile, the credit card issuers provided protection against nonpayment to the merchant who accepted a credit card, and they also provided some protection for the card-holder against the fraudulent use of the cards.

Fifth, a major restructuring of the U.S. economy occurred at the beginning of the 1990s, in which millions of workers were laid off or could

find only contingent jobs. Many of these workers found credit cards to be a convenient way to maintain consumption levels and their family’s lifestyle even though their expected income stream was interrupted.

These trends contributed to an increase in the numbers of people who had high debt-to-income ratios. Some people incurred high levels of debt, often at high interest rates, and simultaneously experienced declining or stagnant income. While not every person with a high debt-to-income ratio filed for bankruptcy, those who did file for bankruptcy had very high ratios. Changes in the American economy during the decade of the 1990s probably influenced the increase in the number of bankruptcies. In particular, the increasing indebtedness of Americans closely tracked the rise in bankruptcies.

Rising Indebtedness. The economic changes of the 1990s, in addition to the well-entrenched borrowing for home mortgages, car purchases,

and college expenses, have resulted in an increase in consumer credit outstanding from 298 billion dollars in 1980 to 1,025 billion in 1995. Thus, while the U.S. population increased by 16 percent, indebtedness increased by 244 percent. These are nominal dollars, but even accounting for inflation (constant dollars) the debt burden doubled. During this same time frame, mortgage lending increased by 223 percent, from 1,463 billion dollars in 1980 to 4,724 billion dollars in 1995. Credit card debt, which was only 81.2 billion dollars in 1980, had increased by 351 percent to 366.4 dollars in

1995. Thus, while there was an increase in all forms of indebtedness, credit card debt—which began from a smaller base—showed the largest percentage increase.

Industry sources estimate that in 1990 there were 1.03 billion credit cards in circulation in the United States, and that by 2000 a projected 1.34 billion cards will be in circulation. In 1990, these cards accounted for 466 billion dollars of spending and resulted in 236 billion dollars of debt. By 2000, the projected spending is 1,443 billion dollars, with 661 billion dollars as debt.

In its survey of how consumers use credit cards, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System reported that 54.5 percent of the sample always paid off the balance on their credit cards each month. Another 19.1 percent sometimes pay off the balance, and the remaining 26.4 percent hardly ever pay off the balance. It is from this latter group that the credit card issuers run the greatest risk of eventual nonpayment but also have the possibility of earning the greatest amount of interest. About 30 percent of the consumers earning less than $50,000 a year ‘‘hardly ever’’ pay off the balance, compared with only 10.5 percent of those who earn more than $100,000. Over 35 percent of the consumers under the age of thirtyfive hardly ever pay off their balance, compared with 10.5 percent of people over the age of sev- enty-five.

Credit cards alone do not pose a major financial problem for most people, even for those who maintain a balance; the median balance is about $1,000, with a median charge of $200 a month. For those people with larger balances, however, and with interest charges and sometimes penalties and late fees added to the principal, indebtedness may

become a serious problem. And although facing this problem can be postponed by making small monthly payments, the balance can quickly become too large ever to be handled on most salaries.

The ubiquity and convenience of credit cards has led to their growing use for additional purposes: as a form of identification, as security for returning rented cars and videotapes, and—per- haps ironically—as an indicator of creditworthiness for additional extensions of credit.

INTERNATIONAL CREDIT ISSUES

Besides the indebtedness of the individuals in a population, there is also growing concern about other forms of indebtedness. Many countries, especially those with less developed economies, have borrowed large sums of money from more developed countries. The repayment of these loans, and the terms that are demanded, have provided a source of tension between the richer nations and the poorer nations. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund often prescribe austerity measures to help a country meet its repayment obligations.

The development of transnational corporations has also raised issues of which set of debtorcreditor laws govern transactions that may span several countries. Debtor-creditor laws and the laws of insolvency and bankruptcy vary dramatically from country to country, and an important issue in international commerce is how to handle problems of nonpayment. Many of these issues remain highly contested and largely unsettled.

REFERENCES

Caplovitz, David 1974 Consumers In Trouble: A Study of Debtors in Default. New York: Free Press.

Delaney, Kevin J. 1992 Strategic Bankruptcy: How Corporations and Creditors Use Chapter 11 to Their Advantage. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jacob, Herbert 1969 Debtors in Court; The Consumption of Government Services. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Ritzer, George 1995 Expressing America: A Critique of the Global Credit Card Society. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press.

Ryan, Martin 1995 The Last Resort: A Study of Consumer Bankrupts. Aldershot, Eng.: Avebury.

Stanley, David T., and Marjorie Girth 1971 Bankruptcy: Problem, Process, Reform. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Sullivan, Teresa A., Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Lawrence Westbrook 2000 The Fragile Middle Class. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

——— 1999 As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America. Reprint. Chevy Chase, Md.: Beard Books.

exchange transactions that involve reciprocal reinforcement by the partners increase in frequency or probability; those transactions that are not mutually reinforcing or are costly to the partners decrease in frequency over time. There is a growing body of research literature supporting social exchange theory as a way of understanding a variety of social relationships.

———1995 ‘‘Bankruptcy and the Family.’’ Marriage and Family Review 21, 3/4 (1995):193–215.

———1994 ‘‘Consumer Debtors Ten Years Later: A Financial Comparison of Consumer Bankrupts 1981– 1991.’’ American Bankruptcy Law Journal 68,2 (Spring):121–154.

———1994 ‘‘The Persistence of Local Legal Culture: Twenty Years of Evidence from the Federal Bankruptcy Courts.’’ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 17,3 (Summer):801–865.

TERESA A. SULLIVAN

BEHAVIORISM

Behaviorism is the conceptual framework underlying the science of behavior. The science itself is often referred to as the experimental analysis of behavior or behavior analysis. Modern behaviorism emphasizes the analysis of conditions that maintain and change behavior as well as the factors that influence the acquisition or learning of behavior. Behaviorists also offer concepts and analyses that go well beyond the common-sense understanding of reward and punishment. Contemporary behaviorism provides an integrated framework for the study of human behavior, society, and culture.

Within the social sciences, behaviorism has referred to the social-learning perspective that emphasizes the importance of reinforcement principles in regulating social behavior (McLaughlin 1971). In addition, sociologists such as George Homans and Richard Emerson have incorporated the principles of behavior into their theories of elementary social interaction or exchange (Emerson 1972; Homans 1961). The basic idea in social exchange approaches is that humans exchange valued activities (e.g., giving respect and getting help) and that these transactions are ‘‘held together’’ by the principle of reinforcement. That is,

SOME BASIC ISSUES

The roots of behaviorism lie in its philosophical debate with introspectionism—the belief that the mind can be revealed from a person’s reports of thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Behaviorists opposed the use of introspective reports as the basic data of psychology. These researchers argued for a natural-science approach and showed how introspective reports of consciousness were inadequate. Reports of internal states and experiences were said to lack objectivity, were available to only one observer, and were prone to error.

Some behaviorists used these arguments and also others to reject cognitive explanations of behavior

(Skinner 1974; Pierce and Epling 1984; but see

Bandura 1986 for an alternative view).

The natural-science approach of behaviorism emphasizes the search for general laws and principles of behavior. For example, the quantitative law of effect is a mathematical statement of how the rate of response increases with the rate of reinforcement (Herrnstein 1970). Under controlled conditions, this equation allows the scientist to predict precisely and to regulate the behavior of organisms. Behavior analysts suggest that this law and other behavior principles will eventually account for complex human behavior (McDowell 1988).

Contemporary behaviorists usually restrict themselves to the study of observable responses and events. Observable events are those that are directly sensed or are made available to our senses by instruments. The general strategy is to manipulate aspects of the environment and measure welldefined responses. If behavior reliably changes with a manipulated condition, the researcher has established an environment-behavior relationship.

Analysis of such relationships has often resulted in behavioral laws and principles. For example, the principle of discrimination states that an organism

will respond differently to two situations if its behavior is reinforced in one setting but not in the other. You may talk about politics to one person but not to another, because the first person has been interested in such conversation in the past while the second has not. The principle of discrimination and other behavior principles account for many aspects of human behavior.

Although behaviorism usually has been treated as a uniform and consistent philosophy and science, a conceptual reconstruction indicates that there are many branches to the behavioral tree (Zuriff 1985). Most behavior analysts share a set of core assumptions; however, there are internal disputes over less central issues. To illustrate, some behaviorists argue against hypothetical constructs (e.g., memory) while others accept such concepts as an important part of theory construction.

Throughout the intellectual history of behaviorism, a variety of assumptions and concepts has been presented to the scientific community. Some of these ideas have flourished when they were found to further the scientific analysis of behavior. Other formulations were interesting variations of behavioristic ideas, but they became extinct when they served no useful function. For instance, one productive assumption is that a person’s knowledge of emotional states is due to a special history of verbal conditioning (Bem 1965,

1972; Skinner 1957). Self-perception and attributional approaches to social psychology have built on this assumption, although researchers in this field seldom acknowledge the impact. In contrast, the assumption that thinking is merely subvocal speech was popular at one time but is now replaced by an analysis of problem solving (Skinner 1953, 1969). In this view, thinking is behavior that precedes and guides the final performance of finding a solution. Generally, it is important to recognize that behaviorism continues to evolve as a philosophy of science, a view of human nature, and an ideology that recommends goals for behavioral science and its applications.

THE STUDY OF BEHAVIOR

Behaviorism requires that a scientist study the behavior of organisms for its own sake. Behaviorists do not study behavior in order to make inferences

about mental states or physiological processes. Although most behaviorists emphasize the importance of biology and physiological processes, they focus on the interplay of behavior and environment.

In order to maintain this focus, behaviorists examine the evolutionary history and physiological status of an organism as part of the context for specific environment-behavior interactions. For example, a biological condition that results in blindness may have profound behavioral effects. For a newly sightless individual, visual events, such as watching television or going to a movie no longer support specific interactions, while other sensory events become salient (e.g., reading by braille). The biological condition limits certain kinds of behavioral interactions and, at the same time, augments the regulation of behavior by other aspects of the environment. Contemporary behaviorism therefore emphasizes what organisms are doing, the environmental conditions that regulate their actions, and how biology and evolution constrain or enhance environment-behavior interactions.

Modern behaviorists are interested in voluntary action, and they have developed a way of talking about purpose, volition, and intention within a natural-science approach. They note that the language of intention was pervasive in biology before Darwin’s functional analysis of evolution.

Although it appears that giraffes grow long necks in order to obtain food at the tops of trees, Darwin made it clear that the process of evolution involved no plan, strategy of design, or purpose.

Natural variation ensures that giraffes vary in neck size. As vegetation declines at lower heights, animals with longer necks obtain food, survive to adulthood, and reproduce; those with shorter necks starve to death. In this environment (niche), the frequency of long-necked giraffes increases over generations. Such an increase is called natural selection. Contemporary behaviorists insist that selection, as a causal mode, also accounts for the form and frequency of behavior during the lifetime of an individual. A person’s current behavior is therefore composed of performances that have been selected in the past (Skinner 1987).

An important class of behavior is selected by its consequences. The term operant refers to behavior that operates upon the environment to produce effects, outcomes, or consequences. Operant

behavior is said to be emitted because it does not depend on an eliciting stimulus. Examples of operant behavior include manipulation of objects, talking with others, problem solving, drawing, reading, writing, and many other performances. Consequences select this behavior in the sense that specific operants occur at high frequency in a given setting. To illustrate, driving to the store is operant behavior that is likely to occur when there is little food in the house. In this situation, the operant has a high probability if such behavior has previously resulted in obtaining food (i.e. the store is open). Similarly, the conversation of a person also is selected by its social consequences. At the pub, a student shows high probability of talking to his friends about sports. Presumably, this behavior occurs at high frequency because his friends have previously ‘‘shown an interest’’ in such conversation. The behavior of an individual is therefore adapted to a particular setting by its history of consequences.

A specific operant, such as opening a door, includes many performance variations. The door may be opened by turning the handle, pushing with a foot, or even by asking someone to open it. These variations in performance have a common effect upon the environment in the sense that each one results in the door being opened. Because each variation produces similar consequences, behaviorists talk about an operant as a response class. Operants such as opening a door, talking to others, answering questions, and many other actions are each a response class that includes a multitude of forms, both verbal and nonverbal.

In the laboratory, the study of operant behavior requires a basic measure that is sensitive to changes in the environment. Most behaviorists use an operant’s rate of occurrence as the basic data for analysis. Operant rate is measured as the frequency of an operant (class) over a specified period of time. Although operant rate is not directly observable, a cumulative recorder is an instrument that shows the rate of occurrence as changes in the slope (or rise) of a line on moving paper. When an operant is selected by its consequences, the operant rate increases and the slope becomes steeper. Operants that are not appropriate to the requirements of the environment decrease in rate of occurrence (i.e., decline in slope). Changes in operant rate therefore reflect the basic causal process of selection by consequences (Skinner 1969).

Behavior analysts continue to use the cumulative recorder to provide an immediate report on a subject’s behavior in an experimental situation.

However, most researchers are interested in complex settings where there are many alternatives and multiple operants. Today, microcomputers collect and record a variety of behavioral measures that are later examined by complex numerical analysis. Researchers also use computers to arrange environmental events for individual behavior and provide these events in complex patterns and sequences.

CONTINGENCIES OF REINFORCEMENT

Behaviorists often focus on the analysis of environ- ment-behavior relationships. The relationship between operant behavior and its consequences defines a contingency of reinforcement. In its simplest form, a two-term contingency of reinforcement may be shown as R(Sr. The symbol R represents the operant class, and Sr stands for the reinforcing stimulus or event. The arrow indicates that ‘‘if R occurs, then Sr will follow.’’ In the laboratory, the behavior analyst arranges the environment so that a contingency exists between an operant (e.g., pecking a key) and the occurrence of some event (e.g., presentation of food). If the presentation of the event increases operant behavior, the event is defined as a positive reinforcer. The procedure of repeatedly presenting a positive reinforcer contingent on behavior is called positive reinforcement (see Pierce and Epling 1999).

A contingency of reinforcement defines the probability that a reinforcing event will follow operant behavior. When a person turns the ignition key of the car (operant), this behavior usually has resulted in the car starting (reinforcement). Turning the key does not guarantee, however, that the car will start; perhaps it is out of gas, the battery is run down, and so on. Thus, the probability of reinforcement is high for this behavior, but reinforcement is not certain. The behavior analyst is interested in how the probability of reinforcement is related to the rate and form of operant behavior. For example, does the person continue to turn the ignition key even though the car doesn’t start? Qualities of behavior such as persistence, depression, and elation reflect the probability of reinforcement.

Reinforcement may depend on the number of responses or the passage of time. A schedule of reinforcement is a procedure that states how consequences are arranged for behavior. When reinforcement is delivered after each response, a continuous schedule of reinforcement is in effect. A child who receives payment each time she mows the lawn is on a continuous schedule of reinforcement. Continuous reinforcement produces a very high and steady rate of response, but as any parent knows, the behavior quickly stops if reinforcement no longer occurs.

Continuous reinforcement is a particular form of ratio schedule. Fixed-ratio schedules state the number of responses per reinforcement. These schedules are called fixed ratio since a fixed number of responses are required for reinforcement. In a factory, piece rates of payment are examples of fixed-ratio schedules. Thus, a worker may receive $1 for sewing twenty pieces of elastic wristband. When the ratio of responses to reinforcement is high (value per unit output is low), fixedratio schedules produce long pauses following reinforcement: Overall productivity may be low, leading plant managers to complain about ‘‘slacking off’’ by the workers. The problem, however, is the schedule of reinforcement that fixes a high number of responses to payment.

Reinforcement may be arranged on a variable, rather than fixed, basis. The schedule of payoff for a slot machine is a variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement. The operant involves putting in a dollar and pulling the handle, and reinforcement is the jackpot. The jackpot occurs after a variable number of responses. Variable-ratio schedules produce a high rate of response that takes a long time to stop when reinforcement is withdrawn. The gambler may continue to put money in the machine even though the jackpot rarely, if ever, occurs. Behavior on a variable-ratio schedule is said to show negative utility since people often invest more than they get back.

Behavior may also be reinforced only after an interval of time has passed. A fixed-interval schedule stipulates that the first response following a specified interval is reinforced. Looking for a bus is behavior that is reinforced after a fixed time set by the bus schedule. If you just missed a bus, the probability of looking for the next one is quite low.

As time passes, the rate of response increases with

the highest rate occurring just before the bus arrives. Thus, the rate of response is initially zero but gradually rises to a peak at the moment of reinforcement. This response pattern is called scalloping and is characteristic of fixed-interval reinforcement. In order to eliminate such patterning, a variable-interval schedule may be stipulated. In this case, the first response after a variable amount of time is reinforced. If a person knows by experience that bus arrivals are irregular, looking for the next bus will occur at a moderate and steady rate because the passage of time no longer signals reinforcement (i.e., arrival of the bus).

The schedules of reinforcement that regulate human behavior are complex combinations of ratio and interval contingencies. An adjusting schedule is one example of a more complex arrangement between behavior and its consequences (Zeiler 1977). When the ratio (or interval) for reinforcement changes on the basis of performance, the schedule is called adjusting. A math teacher who spends more or less time with a student depending on the student’s competence (i.e., number of correct solutions) provides reinforcement on an ad- justing-ratio basis. When reinforcement is arranged by other people (i.e., social reinforcement), the level of reinforcement is often tied to the level of behavior (i.e., the greater the strength of response the less the reward from others). This adjustment between behavior and socially arranged consequences may account for the flexibility and variability that characterize adult human behavior.

Human behavior is regulated not only by its consequences. Contingencies of reinforcement also involve the events that precede operant behavior. The preceding event is said to ‘‘set the occasion’’ for behavior and is called a discriminative stimulus or Sd. The ring of a telephone (Sd) may set the occasion for answering it (operant), although the ring does not force one to do so. Similarly, a nudge under the table (Sd) may prompt a new topic of conversation (operant) or cause the person to stop speaking. Discriminative stimuli may be private as well as public events. Thus, a headache may result in taking a pill or calling a physician. A mild headache may be discriminative stimulus for taking an aspirin, while more severe pain sets the occasion for telephoning a doctor.

Although discriminative stimuli exert a broad range of influences over human behavior, these

events do not stand alone. These stimuli regulate behavior because they are an important part of the contingencies of reinforcement. Behaviorism has therefore emphasized a three-term contingency of reinforcement, symbolized as Sd:R(r)Sr. The notation states that a specific event (Sd) sets the occasion for an operant (R) that produces reinforcement (Sr). The discriminative stimulus regulates behavior only because it signals past consequences. Thus, a sign that states ‘‘Eat at Joe’s’’ may set the occasion for your stopping at Joe’s restaurant because of the great meals received in the past. If Joe hires a new cook, and the meals deteriorate in quality, then Joe’s sign will gradually lose its influence. Similarly, posted highway speeds regulate driving on the basis of past consequences. The driver who has been caught by a radar trap is more likely to observe the speed limit.

CONTEXT OF BEHAVIOR

Contingencies of reinforcement, as complex arrangements of discriminative stimuli, operants, and reinforcements, remain a central focus of behavioral research. Contemporary behaviorists are also concerned with the context of behavior, and how context affects the regulation of behavior by its consequences (Fantino and Logan 1979). Important aspects of context include the biological and cultural history of an organism, its current physiological status, previous environment—be- havior interactions, alternative sources of reinforcement, and a history of deprivation (or satiation) for specific events or stimuli. To illustrate, in the laboratory food is used typically as an effective reinforcer for operant behavior. There are obvious times, however, when food will not function as reinforcement. If a person (or animal) has just eaten a large meal or has an upset stomach, food has little effect upon behavior.

There are less obvious interrelations between reinforcement and context. Recent research indicates that depriving an organism of one reinforcer may increase the effectiveness of a different behavioral consequence. As deprivation for food increased, animals worked harder to obtain an opportunity to run on a wheel. Additionally, animals who were satiated on wheel running no longer pressed a lever to obtain food. These results imply that eating and running are biologically interrelated. Based on this biological history, the supply or

availability of one of these reinforcers alters the effectiveness of the other (Pierce, Epling, and Boer 1986). It is possible that many reinforcers are biologically interrelated. People commonly believe that sex and aggression go together in some unspecified manner. One possibility is that the availability of sexual reinforcement alters the reinforcing effectiveness of an opportunity to inflict harm on others.

CHOICE AND PREFERENCE

The emphasis on context and reinforcement contingencies has allowed modern behaviorists to explore many aspects of behavior that seem to defy a scientific analysis. Most people believe that choice and preference are basic features of human nature. Our customary way of speaking implies that people make decisions on the basis of their knowledge and dispositions. In contrast, behavioral studies of decision making suggest that we choose an option based on its rate of return compared with alternative sources of reinforcement.

Behaviorists have spent the last thirty years studying choice in the laboratory using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. The word concurrent means ‘‘operating at the same time.’’ Thus, concurrent schedules are two (or more) schedules operating at the same time, each schedule providing reinforcement independently. The experimental setting is arranged so that an organism is free to alternate between two or more alternatives. Each alternative provides a schedule of reinforcement for choosing it over the other possibilities. A person may choose between two (or more) response buttons that have different rates of monetary payoff. Although the experimental setting is abstract, concurrent schedules of reinforcement provide an analogue of choice in everyday life.

People are often faced with a variety of alternatives, and each alternative has its associated benefits (and costs). When a person puts money in the bank rather than spending it on a new car, television, or refrigerator, we speak of the individual choosing to save rather than spend. In everyday life, choice often involves repeated selection of one alternative (e.g. putting money in the bank) over the other alternatives considered as a single option (e.g. buying goods and services). Similarly, the criminal chooses to take the property of others rather than take the socially acceptable

route of working for a living or accepting social assistance. The arrangement of consequences for crime and legitimate ways of making a living is conceptually the same as concurrent schedules of reinforcement (Hamblin and Crosbie 1977).

Behaviorists are interested in the distribution or allocation of behavior when a person is faced with different rates of reinforcement from two (or more) alternatives. The distribution of behavior is measured as the relative rate of response to, or relative time spent on, a specific option. For example, a student may go to school twelve days and skip eight days each month (not counting weekends). The relative rate of response to school is the proportion of the number of days at school to the total number of days, or 12/20 = 0.60. Expressed as a percentage, the student allocates 60 percent of her behavior to school. In the laboratory, a person may press the left button twelve times and the right button eight times each minute.

The distribution of reinforcement may also be expressed as a percentage. In everyday life, it is difficult to identify and quantify behavioral consequences, but it is easily accomplished in the laboratory. If the reinforcement schedule on the left button produces $30 an hour and the right button yields $20, 60 percent of the reinforcements are on the left. There is a fundamental relationship between relative rate of reinforcement and relative rate of response. This relationship is called the matching law. The law states that the distribution of behavior to two (or more) alternatives matches (equals) the distribution of reinforcement from these alternatives (Herrnstein 1961; de Villiers 1977).

Although it is difficult to identify rates of reinforcement for attending school and skipping, the matching law does suggest some practical solutions (Epling and Pierce 1988). For instance, parents and the school may be able to arrange positive consequences when a child goes to school. This means that the rate of reinforcement for going to school has increased, and therefore the relative rate of reinforcement for school has gone up.

According to the matching law, a child will now distribute more behavior to the school.

Unfortunately, there is another possibility. A child may receive social reinforcement from friends for skipping, and as the child begins to spend more time at school, friends may increase their rate of reinforcement for cutting classes. Even though the

absolute rate of reinforcement for going to school has increased, the relative rate of reinforcement has remained the same or decreased. The overall effect may be no change in school attendance or even further decline. In order to deal with the problem, the matching law implies that interventions must increase reinforcement for attendance and maintain or reduce reinforcement for skipping, possibly by turning up the cost of this behavior (e.g., withdrawal of privileges).

The matching law has been tested with human and nonhuman subjects under controlled conditions. One interesting study assessed human performance in group discussion sessions. Subjects were assigned to groups discussing attitudes toward drug abuse. Each group was composed of three confederates and a subject. Two confederates acted as listeners and reinforced the subject’s talk with brief positive words and phrases, provided on the basis of cue lights. Thus, the rate of reinforcement by each listener could be varied depending on the number of signals arranged by the researchers. A third confederate asked questions but did not reinforce talking. Results were analyzed in terms of the relative time subjects spent talking to the two listeners. Speakers matched their distribution of conversation to the distribution of positive comments from the listeners. Apparently, choosing to speak to others is behavior that is regulated by the matching law (Conger and Kileen 1974).

Researchers have found that exact matching does not always hold between relative rate of reinforcement and relative rate of response. A more general theory of behavioral matching has been tested in order to account for the departures from perfect matching. One source of deviation is called response bias. Bias is a systematic preference for an alternative, but the preference is not due to the difference in rate of reinforcement. For example, even though two friends provide similar rates of reinforcement, social characteristics (e.g., status and equity) may affect the distribution of behavior (Sunahara and Pierce 1982). Generalized matching theory is able to address many social factors as sources of bias that affect human choice and preference (Baum 1974; Pierce and Epling 1983;

Bradshaw and Szabadi 1988).

A second source of deviation from matching is called sensitivity to differences in reinforcement.