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-oflow-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 work 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 instruction lights turned off after the first session. The results once again showed an effect of 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.

In a behavioral view, the purposes of science are primarily prediction and control. To the extent that a scientist embraces both of these as a unified and generally applicable criterion for science, certain philosophical and theoretical practices are counterproductive, including mentalism in both its metaphysical and metatheoretical forms. It is possible and often worthwhile to recast some mentalistic talk into an issue of behavior-behavior relations. When behavior-behavior relations are approached non-mechanistically, however, analysis cannot stop at the level of the relations themselves. Several analytic concepts common in the behavioral community share some of the dangers of mentalism if not employed properly, including such concepts as self-reinforcement, response-produced stimulation, and self-rules.

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.

Reinforcements were arranged independently of the pigeon's behavior by concurrent variable-interval schedules. The reinforcements arranged by one of the schedules occurred when the chamber was illuminated with amber light, and the reinforcements arranged by the other schedule occurred when the chamber was illuminated with blue light. Both schedules functioned concurrently, but reinforcers were delivered by each only in the presence of the appropriate stimulus condition. A response on a white key, the only key in the chamber, alternated the stimulus condition and the effective schedule. The results of this procedure were similar to those obtained with concurrent response-dependent variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. The proportion of the total session time spent in the presence of a schedule component approximated the proportion of the total number of reinforcements in the component. Changeover rate was a decreasing function of the changeover delay and of the difference between the relative rates of reinforcement for each pair of concurrent schedules.

Presentations of grain to three pigeons were determined by two response-independent schedules. Interpresentation intervals varied with a mean interval of 1.5 min for each schedule. Both were concurrently operative, but grain was presented by one only when the chamber was illuminated with blue light and by the other only during amber illumination. A response on a white key, the only key in the chamber, alternated the stimulus conditions and the effective schedule. Grain presentation durations associated with the illumination conditions were varied from 1.5 to 4.5 sec. The proportion of the total session time spent in an illumination condition closely approximated the relative grain presentation duration provided in that illumination. For two of the birds, the proportion of the total number of grain presentations obtained in an illumination condition was an increasng function of the presentation duration in that illumination.