Pattern notebook

The sample size:

(len (ssi sb (= $tv 3)))

How many subjects answered each quiz question correctly:

(.sum (getl quiz (ssi sb (= $tv 3))))

The number of subjects who answered every question correctly:

(setv s-tv3-all-correct (list
  (. (ss (.all (getl quiz (ssi sb (= $tv 3))) 1) $) index)))
(len s-tv3-all-correct)

Number of I choices, all TV 3 subjects (recall that there are 60 trials):

(.sort-values (.sum :level "sn"
  (= (getl ts (ssi sb (= $tv 3)) "choice") "I")))

Number of I choices, only TV 3 subjects who answered every quiz question correctly:

(.sort-values (.sum :level "sn"
  (= (getl ts s-tv3-all-correct "choice") "I")))

Quantiles of the above (expressed as proportions out of 60):

(rd 2 (.quantile
  (.mean (= (getl ts s-tv3-all-correct "choice") "I") :level "sn")
  [.25 .5 .75]))

For comparison, the corresponding quantiles in the 49 subjects of Luhmann, Ishida, and Hajcak (2011) are .17, .43, and .63.

Also for comparison, here's the MTurk subjects:

(.sort-values (.sum :level "sn"
  (= (getl ts (ssi sb (< $tv 3)) "choice") "I")))

Choices of I after D has become available are still rare. This is the complete list:

(ss
  (getl ts (ssi sb (<= $tv 3)))
  (& (> $rt $dwait) (= $choice "I")))

For TV 4, I changed the gamble amounts and probabilities and switched to hypothetical rewards. For TV 5, I reworded the first quiz question.

(.sort-values (.sum :level "sn"
  (= (getl ts (ssi sb (.isin $tv [4 5])) "choice") "I")))

(rd 2 (.quantile
  (.mean :level "sn"
    (= (getl ts (ssi sb (.isin $tv [4 5])) "choice") "I"))
  [.25 .5 .75]))

(learn-scatter (ssi sb (.isin $tv [4 5])))

g/tv4-learn-scatter

Here, black dots are I choices and white dots are D choices.

Same as TV 5, but with real rewards again.

(.sort-values (.sum :level "sn"
  (= (getl ts (ssi sb (= $tv 6)) "choice") "I")))

(rd 2 (.quantile
  (.mean :level "sn"
    (= (getl ts (ssi sb (= $tv 6)) "choice") "I"))
  [.25 .5 .75]))

Maybe a little less than TV 5, but not bad.

(learn-scatter (ssi sb (= $tv 6)))

g/tv6-learn-scatter

Now we're randomly assigning all 4 conditions.

Choices of I after D has already been available for 2 s:

(setv n-late (.sum (.groupby :level "sn" (wc
  (getl ts s-final)
  (& (> $rt (+ $dwait 2)) (= $choice "I"))))))
(.sort-values :ascending F (get n-late (> n-late 0)))

Let's exclude subjects who made 3 or more such errors, or who were inattentive according to the experimenter's notes.

(setv s-late (set (. (get n-late (>= n-late 3)) index)))
(setv s-inattentive #{"s069" "s185"})
(setv s-good (sorted (- (set s-final) s-late s-inattentive)))
(valcounts (getl sb s-good "cond"))

The number of subjects who got each possible number of quiz questions wrong:

(.sort-index (valcounts ($ (getl sb s-final) quiz-qs-wrong)))

And here's the number of subjects who got each quiz question wrong:

(.sum (~ (getl quiz s-final)))

Subjects per condition getting no quiz questions wrong and satisfying the above criteria:

(valcounts ($ (ss (getl sb s-good) (= $quiz-qs-wrong 0)) cond))

• discuss self-control problems and notions of self-control
• introduce teleological behaviorism (Rachlin (2017) - describes teleological behaviorism; Rachlin (2019) - theory: behavioral evolution can select behavior patterns that are beneficial as a pattern but comprise deleterious individual actions )

Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219–224. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00441

Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2(1), 671–698. doi:10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124324

Ciria, L. F., Quintero, M. J., López, F. J., Luque, D., Cobos, P. L., & Morís, J. (2021). Intolerance of uncertainty and decisions about delayed, probabilistic rewards: A replication and extension of Luhmann, C. C., Ishida, K., & Hajcak, G. (2011). PLOS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256210

Giné, X., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2010). Put your money where your butt is: A commitment contract for smoking cessation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(4), 213–235. doi:10.1257/app.2.4.213

Luhmann, C. C., Ishida, K., & Hajcak, G. (2011). Intolerance of uncertainty and decisions about delayed, probabilistic rewards. Behavior Therapy, 42, 378–386. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.09.002. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.stonybrook.edu/cluhmann-/papers/luhmann-2011-bt.pdf

Park, J., Kim, J., Jhang, J., Lee, J. C., & Lee, J. (2022). The impact of infectious disease threat on consumers' pattern-seeking in sequential choices. Psychology and Marketing, 39(2), 370–389. doi:10.1002/mar.21602

Rachlin, H. (2014, July 24). If you're so smart, why aren't you happy? Retrieved from http://blog.oup.com/2014/07/psychology-self-monitor-abstract-particular

Rachlin, H. (2016). Self-control based on soft commitment. Behavior Analyst, 39(2), 259–268. doi:10.1007/s40614-016-0054-9

Rachlin, H. (2017). In defense of teleological behaviorism. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 37(2), 65. doi:10.1037/teo0000060

Rachlin, H. (2019). Group selection in behavioral evolution. Behavioural Processes, 161, 65–72. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.005

Read, D., Loewenstein, G., & Kalyanaraman, S. (1999). Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 257–273. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199912)12:4<257::AID-BDM327>3.0.CO;2-6

Read, D., & van Leeuwen, B. (1998). Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 189–205. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2803

Rogers, T., Milkman, K. L., & Volpp, K. G. (2014). Commitment devices: Using initiatives to change behavior. JAMA, 311(20), 2065–2066. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.3485

Siegel, E., & Rachlin, H. (1995). Soft commitment: Self-control achieved by response persistence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64(2), 117–128. doi:10.1901/jeab.1995.64-117