Undergraduate students' presses on left and right buttons occasionally made available points exchangeable for money. Blue lights over the buttons were correlated with multiple random-ratio random-interval components; usually, the random-ratio schedule was assigned to the left button and the random-interval to the right. During interruptions on the multiple schedule, students filled out sentence-completion guess sheets (e.g., The way to earn points with the left button is to...). For different groups, guesses were shaped with differential points also worth money (e.g., successive approximations to "press fast" for the left button), or were instructed (e.g., Write "press slowly" for the left button), or were simply collected. Control of rate of pressing by guesses was examined in individual cases by reversing shaped or instructed guesses, by instructing pressing rates, and/or by reversing multiple-schedule contingencies. Shaped guesses produced guess-consistent pressing even when guessed rates opposed those characteristic of the contingencies (e.g., slow random-ratio and fast random-interval rates), whereas guesses and rates of pressing rarely corresponded after unsuccessful shaping of guesses or when guessing had no differential consequences. Instructed guesses and pressing were inconsistently related. In other words, when verbal responses were shaped (contingency-governed), they controlled nonverbal responding. When they were instructed (rule-governed), their control of nonverbal responding was inconsistent: the verbal behavior sometimes controlled, sometimes was controlled by, and sometimes was independent of the nonverbal behavior.

College students' presses on a telegraph key were occasionally reinforced by light onsets in the presence of which button presses (consummatory responses) produced points later exchangeable for money. One student's key presses were reinforced according to a variableratio schedule; key presses of another student in a separate room were reinforced according to a variable-interval schedule yoked to the interreinforcement intervals produced by the first student. Instructions described the operation of the reinforcement button, but did not mention the telegraph key; instead, key pressing was established by shaping. Performances were comparable to those of infrahuman organisms: variable-ratio key-pressing rates were higher than yoked variable-interval rates. With some yoked pairs, schedule effects occurred so rapidly that rate reversals produced by schedule reversals were demonstrable within one session. But sensitivity to these contingencies was not reliably obtained with other pairs for whom an experimenter demonstrated key pressing or for whom the reinforcer included automatic point deliveries instead of points produced by button presses. (1974) found that response-dependent reinforcers maintained higher response rates in pigeons than responseindependent reinforcers, but Streifel (1972) found no difference in the response rates maintained by response-dependent and responseindependent reinforcers with two of three humans. Herrnstein (1970) found that the proportion of a pigeon's total responses maintained by each of two concurrent variableinterval schedules approximately matched the proportion of the total reinforcers provided by each schedule, but Schmitt (1974) failed to obtain such matching with human concurrent responding. In fixed-interval (FI) performances, infrahuman responding is typically characterized by a scallop (i.e., a postreinforcement pause followed by a gradually increasing response rate within individual intervals: Ferster and Skinner, 1957), but the Fl performance of humans is commonly characterized by high rates without postreinforcement pauses (e.g., Weiner, 1969Weiner, , 1970. Yet an organism's sensitivity to schedule contingencies is simply sensitivity to the differential consequences of its own behavior, and it is puzzling that human responding often appears less sensitive than that of other species.

College students' presses on a telegraph key occasionally turned on a light in the presence of which button presses produced points later exchangeable for money. Initially, responding was maintained by low-rate contingencies superimposed on either random-interval or random-ratio schedules. Later, the low-rate contingencies were relaxed. Low-rate key pressing had been established for some students by shaping and for others by demonstration and written instructions. After the low-rate contingencies were relaxed, higher response rates generally did not increase point earnings with random-interval scheduling, but did so with random-ratio scheduling. In both cases, shaped responding usually increased, and instructed responding usually continued at an unchanged low rate. The insensitivity of instructed responding typically occurred despite contact with the contingencies. The differential sensitivity to schedule contingencies of shaped responding relative to instructed responding is consistent with the different properties of contingency-governed and rulegoverned behavior and is not rate-dependent.Key words: instructions, rule-governed behavior, shaping, contingency sensitivity, DRL, random interval, random ratio, telegraph key, humans Human operant behavior should by definition be sensitive to its consequences. But sometimes human responding is insensitive to such contingency differences as those of fixed-interval (FI) versus fixed-ratio (FR) schedules (e.g., Weiner, 1969Weiner, , 1970, or even those of responsedependent versus response-independent schedules (e.g., Striefel, 1972

No abstract

Undergraduates' button presses occasionally produced points exchangeable for money. Left and right buttons were initially correlated with multiple random-ratio (RR) and random-interval (RI) components, respectively. During interruptions of the multiple schedule, students filled out sentence-completion guess sheets describing the schedules, and points were contingent upon the accuracy of guesses. To test for sensitivity to schedule contingencies, schedule components were repeatedly reversed between the two buttons. Pressing rates were consistently higher in ratio than in interval components even when feedback for guesses was discontinued, demonstrating sensitivity to the difference between ratio and interval contingencies. The question was whether this sensitivity was based directly on the contingencies or whether it was rule-governed. For two students, when multiple RR RI schedules were changed to multiple RI RI schedules, rates became low in both components of the multiple RI RI schedule; however, subsequent prevention of point deliveries for the first few responses in any component produced high rates in that component. For a third student, response rates became higher in the RI component that provided the lower rate of reinforcement. In each case, performance was inconsistent with typical effects of the respective schedules with nonhuman organisms; it was therefore plausible to conclude that the apparently contingency-governed performances were instead rule-governed.