Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance.

Instructions can override the influence of programmed schedules of reinforcement. Although this finding has been interpreted as a limitation of reinforcement schedule control in humans, an alternative approach considers instructional control, itself, as a phenomenon determined by subjects' reinforcement histories. This approach was supported in a series of experiments that studied instructional and schedule control when instructions either did or did not accord with the schedule of reinforcement. Experiment I demonstrated that accurate instructions control discriminative performances on multiple avoidance schedules, and that such control persists in a novel discrimination. Experiments II and III showed that elimination of instruction-following occurs when inaccurate instructions cause subjects to contact a monetary loss contingency. Experiment IV demonstrated the reinforcing properties of accurate instructions. Skinner's view of rule-governed behavior is consistent with these findings, and can be extended to account for many aspects of instructional control of human operant behavior.

[1]  A. Bandura Behavior theory and the models of man. , 1974 .

[2]  L. Lippman,et al.  Fixed interval performance as related to instructions and to subjects’ verbalizations of the contingency , 1967 .

[3]  P J Urcuioli Transfer of oddity-from-sample performance in pigeons. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[4]  M. Orne On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. , 1962 .

[5]  H. Weiner Human Behavioral Persistence , 1970 .

[6]  B. L. Hopkins,et al.  The effects of teacher attention on following instructions in a kindergarten class. , 1970, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[7]  A. Baron,et al.  Facilitation and suppression of human loss-avoidance by signaled, unavoidable loss. , 1968, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[8]  A. Kaufman,et al.  Intermittent punishment of human responding maintained by intermittent reinforcement. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[9]  S. Striefel Timeout and concurrent fixed-ratio schedules with human subjects. , 1972, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[10]  B. A. Matthews,et al.  Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. , 1977, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[11]  A. Baron,et al.  Effects of instructions and reinforcement-feedback on human operant behavior maintained by fixed-interval reinforcement. , 1969, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[12]  A Baron,et al.  Clock control of human performance on avoidance and fixed-interval schedules. , 1976, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[13]  H WEINER,et al.  Some effects of response cost upon human operant behavior. , 1962, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[14]  N H AZRIN,et al.  REINFORCEMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS WITH MENTAL PATIENTS. , 1964, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[15]  J A Nevin,et al.  Transfer of hue matching in pigeons. , 1975, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[16]  R. Solomon,et al.  Human traumatic avoidance learning: Theory and experiments on the operant-respondent distinction and failures to learn. , 1962 .

[17]  D R Schmitt Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans. , 1974, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[18]  M. Sidman Tactics of Scientific Research , 1960 .

[19]  Wyckoff Lb The role of observing responses in discrimination learning. Part I. , 1952 .