Search

Verbal rules or instructions often exert obvious and meaningful control over human behavior. Sometimes instructions benefit the individual by enabling faster acquisition of a skill or by obviating an aversive consequence. However, research has also suggested a clear disadvantage: 'insensitivity' to changing underlying contingencies. The two experiments described here investigated the variables that control initial rule-following behavior and rule-following insensitivity. When the initial rule was inaccurate, behavior was consistent with the rule for approximately half of participants and all participants' behavior was mostly insensitive to changing contingencies. When the initial rule was accurate, behavior of all participants was consistent with it and behavior for nearly all participants was insensitive to changes in underlying contingencies. These findings have implications for how best to establish and maintain rule-following behavior in applied settings when deviant behavior would be more reinforcing to the individual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Behavior and events distributed in time can serve as markers that signal delays to future events. The majority of timing research has focused on how behavior changes as the time to some event, usually food availability, decreases. The primary objective of the two experiments presented here was to assess how behavior changes as time passes between two time markers when the first time marker was manipulated but the second, food delivery, was held constant. Pigeons were exposed to fixed-interval, response-initiated fixed-interval, and signaled response-initiated fixed-interval 15- and 30-s schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, first-response latencies were systematically shorter in the signaled response-initiated schedules than response-initiated schedules, suggesting that the first response was a more effective time marker when it was signaled. In Experiment 2, responding in no-food (i.e. 'peak') trials indicated that timing accuracy was equivalent in the three schedule types. Compared to fixed interval schedules, timing precision was reduced in the signaled response-initiated schedules and was lowest in response-initiated schedules. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 coupled with previous research suggest that the overall 'informativeness' of a time marker relative to other events and behaviors in the environment may determine its efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Different events can serve as time markers that initiate intervals in schedules of reinforcement. Pigeons were exposed to fixed-interval (FI) schedules in which the onset of the interval was signaled by the illumination of a key light or initiated by a peck to a lighted key. Food was delivered following the first response after the interval elapsed. In Experiment 1, three pigeons were exposed to a multiple schedule. One component was a standard FI schedule: Key light illumination signaled the onset of the interval. The other component was a response-initiated fixed-interval (RIFI) schedule: The first key-peck response determined the onset of the interval. In Experiment 2, three pigeons were exposed to a multiple FI-RIFI schedule of reinforcement and on occasional trials food was not delivered (i.e. "no-food" or "peak trials"). A yoking procedure equated reinforcement rates between the schedule types in both experiments. Absolute response rates early in the intervals were higher in the RIFI schedules of both experiments. Normalized response-rate gradients, ogive fits of normalized response gradients, and breakpoints were not systematically different for the schedule types in Experiment 1, indicating similar patterns of responding between interval onset and food delivery. However, during peak trials in Experiment 2 the duration of responding at a high rate was longer for RIFI schedules than FI schedules. This suggests that timing precision was reduced in the RIFI schedules and that relative "distinctiveness" of a time marker may determine its efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In fixed-interval (FI) and response-initiated fixed-interval (RIFI) schedules of reinforcement, a response is required after an interval has elapsed for delivery of reinforcement. In RIFI schedules, a response is required to initiate each interval as well. The objective of this experiment was a systematic comparison of performance in the two schedule types over a range of interval durations. Four pigeons were exposed to FI and RIFI schedules of 15, 30, 60, 120 and 240 s. Interfood intervals were longer and more variable in RIFI than corresponding FI schedules. In addition, response rates early in the RIFI schedules were higher than in corresponding FI schedules. However, the distribution of first-response latencies, mean breakpoints, and normalized response gradients suggest that temporal discrimination was equivalent in the two schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]