Skip to main content

Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle, Rosenfarb, & Korn, 1986

APA Citation

Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-Governed Behavior and Sensitivity to Changing Consequences of Responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45(3), 237-256.

Publication Topic
Behavior Analysis: Empirical
Publication Type
Article
Language
English
Keyword(s)
rule-governed behavior, verbal control, contingency insensitivity, multiple schedules, pliance, tracking, button press, humans
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 worl 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 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.

Comments
Authors describe results from two studies examining the effects of adding contingencies by providing rules. Results suggest that rules provide an additional source of control over behavior but do not completely usurp control by consequences contacted.