Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1986 May;45(3):237–256. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237

Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding

Steven C Hayes, Aaron J Brownstein, Robert D Zettle, Irwin Rosenfarb, Zamir Korn
PMCID: PMC1348236  PMID: 16812448

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: rule-governed behavior, verbal control, contingency insensitivity, multiple schedules, pliance, tracking, button press, humans

Full text

PDF
237

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. ADER R., TATUM R. Free-operant avoidance conditioning in human subjects. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:275–276. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. ANGER D. The dependence of interresponse times upon the relative reinforcement of different interresponse times. J Exp Psychol. 1956 Sep;52(3):145–161. doi: 10.1037/h0041255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron A., Kaufman A., Stauber K. A. Effects of instructions and reinforcement-feedback on human operant behavior maintained by fixed-interval reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Sep;12(5):701–712. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Catania A. C., Matthews B. A., Shimoff E. Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Nov;38(3):233–248. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.38-233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. DEUTSCH M., GERARD H. B. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. J Abnorm Psychol. 1955 Nov;51(3):629–636. doi: 10.1037/h0046408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Galizio M. Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):53–70. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hayes S. C., Rosenfarb I., Wulfert E., Munt E. D., Korn Z., Zettle R. D. Self-reinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting? J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):201–214. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hayes S. C., Wolf M. R. Cues, consequences and therapeutic talk: effects of social context and coping statements on pain. Behav Res Ther. 1984;22(4):385–392. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(84)90081-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lowe C. F., Beasty A., Bentall R. P. The role of verbal behavior in human learning: infant performance on fixed-interval schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1983 Jan;39(1):157–164. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lowe C. F., Harzem P., Bagshaw M. Species differences in temporal control of behavior II: human performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 May;29(3):351–361. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1978.29-351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lowe C. F., Harzem P., Hughes S. Determinats of operant behavior in humans: some differences from animals. Q J Exp Psychol. 1978 May;30(2):373–386. doi: 10.1080/14640747808400684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Matthews B. A., Shimoff E., Catania A. C., Sagvolden T. Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1977 May;27(3):453–467. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1977.27-453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Meichenbaum D. H. Cognitive modification of test anxious college students. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1972 Dec;39(3):370–380. doi: 10.1037/h0033896. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shimoff E., Catania A. C., Matthews B. A. Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):207–220. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidman M., Rauzin R., Lazar R., Cunningham S., Tailby W., Carrigan P. A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):23–44. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sidman M., Tailby W. Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: an expansion of the testing paradigm. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):5–22. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. WEINER H. CONDITIONING HISTORY AND HUMAN FIXED-INTERVAL PERFORMANCE. J Exp Anal Behav. 1964 Sep;7:383–385. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1964.7-383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Weiner H. Controlling human fixed-interval performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 May;12(3):349–373. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Zettle R. D., Hayes S. C. Effect of social context on the impact of coping self-statements. Psychol Rep. 1983 Apr;52(2):391–401. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1983.52.2.391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES