RULE‐GOVERNED BEHAVIOR AND SENSITIVITY TO CHANGING CONSEQUENCES OF RESPONDING
- 1 May 1986
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
- Vol. 45 (3) , 237-256
- https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237
Abstract
Humans were presented with a task that required moving a light through a matrix. Button presses could produce light movements according to a multiple fixed‐ratio 18/differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate 6‐s schedule, with components alternating every 2 min. Moving the light through the maze earned points worth chances on money prizes. In Experiment 1 four conditions were assessed through between‐subject comparisons: minimal instructions, instructions to press rapidly, instructions to press slowly, and instructions that sometimes rapid responding would work while at other times a slow rate would work best. Subjects responded in three successive sessions of 32 min each. The results suggested that instructions affected the nature of the contact made with the programmed consequences and thus subsequent performance. In some cases, responding seemed to result from added contingencies introduced by stating rules. In Experiment 2 the relative contribution of these two effects was assessed by presenting and then withdrawing two lights that had been paired with two specific instructions: “Go Fast” or “Go Slow.” There were three conditions. In one condition, only the Go Fast light was on; in a second, only the Go Slow light was on; and in a third, the lights alternated each minute. In each condition, half the subjects had all instruction lights turned off after the first session. The results once again showed an effect of instructions on contact with the programmed consequences. However, responding sometimes continued in a manner consistent with added contingencies for rule‐following even when the programmed consequences had been contacted and would have controlled a different type of responding in the absence of instructions. The relevance of added contingencies for rule‐following in determining the effects of explicitly programmed consequences is emphasized.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Self-reinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting?Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1985
- Cues, consequences and therapeutic talk: Effects of social context and coping statements on painBehaviour Research and Therapy, 1984
- INSTRUCTED VERSUS SHAPED HUMAN VERBAL BEHAVIOR: INTERACTIONS WITH NONVERBAL RESPONDINGJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1982
- CONTINGENCY‐SHAPED AND RULE‐GOVERNED BEHAVIOR: INSTRUCTIONAL CONTROL OF HUMAN LOSS AVOIDANCEJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1979
- Verbal Control in Human Operant BehaviorThe Psychological Record, 1978
- ON THE LAW OF EFFECT1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970
- EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTIONS AND REINFORCEMENT‐FEEDBACK ON HUMAN OPERANT BEHAVIOR MAINTAINED BY FIXED‐INTERVAL REINFORCEMENT1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969
- FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE CONDITIONING IN HUMAN SUBJECTS1Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1961
- The dependence of interresponse times upon the relative reinforcement of different interresponse times.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956
- A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955