Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1986 Sep;46(2):137–147. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-137

Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior

Steven C Hayes, Aaron J Brownstein, Joseph R Haas, David E Greenway
PMCID: PMC1348281  PMID: 16812456

Abstract

Schedule sensitivity has usually been examined either through a multiple schedule or through changes in schedules after steady-state responding has been established. This study compared the effects of these two procedures when various instructions were given. Fifty-five college students responded in two 32-min sessions under a multiple fixed-ratio 18/differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 6-s schedule, followed by one session of extinction. Some subjects received no instructions regarding the appropriate rates of responding, whereas others received instructions to respond slowly, rapidly, or both. Relative to the schedule in operation, the instructions were minimal, partially inaccurate, or accurate. When there was little schedule sensitivity in the multiple schedule, there was little in extinction. When apparently schedule-sensitive responding occurred in the multiple schedule, however, sensitivity in extinction occurred only if differential responding in the multiple schedule could not be due to rules supplied by the experimenter. This evidence shows that rule-governed behavior that occurs in the form of schedule-sensitive behavior may not in fact become schedule-sensitive even though it makes contact with the scheduled reinforcers.

Keywords: verbal control, contingency insensitivity, rule-governed behavior, schedule-controlled behavior, multiple schedules, button press, adult humans

Full text

PDF
137

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. Ascher L. M., Turner R. M. A comparison of two methods for the administration of paradoxical intention. Behav Res Ther. 1980;18(2):121–126. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(80)90106-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. 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]
  6. Hayes S. C., Brownstein A. J., Zettle R. D., Rosenfarb I., Korn Z. Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 May;45(3):237–256. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237. [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. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]

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

RESOURCES