Search

The present study investigated the effects of punishing responses inconsistent with rules on instructional control during a choice task. In a procedure modeled after Hackenberg and Joker (1994), 7 adults were presented with repeated choices between progressive- and fixed-time schedules of reinforcement and were given instructions (rules) for how to respond to maximize earnings. Across sessions, the progressive-time schedule step size was manipulated so that the instructions became increasingly inaccurate, and deviating from the instructions produced greater earnings. The experiment consisted of two phases, Penalty and No Penalty. During the Penalty phase, deviating from the instructions produced a money-loss penalty (response-cost punishment). Two participants showed persistent instructional control and therefore completed only one phase (Penalty or No Penalty), and 1 participant showed little instructional control during the Penalty phase until the punishment magnitude was increased. In all 4 participants who experienced both Penalty and No Penalty phases, punishment increased the consistency of choices with the instructions, and in 2 of these participants punishment increased the progressive-schedule step size at which choices began to systematically deviate from the instructions. These results show that monetary penalties for breaking with rules may enhance instructional control, but that deviations from rules still occur under punishment when such deviations produce greater reinforcement than rule following. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]