Contingency‐shaped and Rule‐governed Behavior: Instructional Control of Human Loss Avoidance

Abstract

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.

The Place of the Human Subject in the Operant Laboratory

“…Thus, the operant researcher need not describe essential details of the procedure, such as the specific contingencies of reinforcement, the sequences of discriminative stimuli, and so on. Furthermore, it is quite appropriate to use procedures involving misinformation, such as giving subjects inaccurate information about the reinforcement schedule (e.g., Galizio, 1979) Given the potential ethical problems, the number of laboratory studies of aversive control with humans is, perhaps, surprising. Less surprising is that very few of these have investigated control by noxious events such as loud noise (e.g., Azrin, 1958) or electric shock (e.g., Ader & Tatum, 1961 Weiner, 1962).…”

An analysis of concept learning: Simple conceptual control and definition-based conceptual control

“…In their study, one group of subjects read the definitions of concepts before discrimination training. Galizio, 1979 (Carnine, 1980a(Carnine, , 1980bDi Vesta & Peverly, 1984;Granzin & Camine, 1977;Merrill & Tennyson, 1978; Woolley, & Merrill, 1972;Tennyson, Steve, & Boiutwell, 1975;Williams & Camine, 1981 (Merrill & Tennyson, 1978;Tennyson & Park, 1980;Tiemann & Markle, 1990 (Tiemann & Markle, 1990, p. 120 Figure 1). Because a rational set includes all critical attributes, the learner must identify all of them when engaging in discrimination tasks.…”

Efeito de Regras Inacuradas e Monitoramento sobre Desempenhos em Programas de Reforços

“…descrever a interação entre instruções e consequências do comportamento de seguir ou não essas instruções. Nessa direção, Buskist e Miller (1986), Cerutti (1989) e Galizio (1979), por exemplo, mostraram que o controle do comportamento pelas instruções diminui quando os participantes entram em contato com a "discrepância" entre a instrução e a contingência programada, sofrendo consequências aversivas (deixando de ganhar reforçadores programados ou perdendo reforçadores por não emitir a resposta de esquiva necessária) por se manterem fazendo o que a instrução preconiza. A história comportamental de contato com uma dada contingência de reforço (Torgrud & Holborn, 1990) ou uma história de seguir instruções correspondentes ou discrepantes (Martinez & Tamayo, 2005, mas ver L. C. Albuquerque, de Souza, Matos, & Paracampo, 2003) são outras variáveis que podem afetar o seguimento de instruções discrepantes.…”

“…Uma estratégia envolve investigar o controle instrucional (ou por regra) manipulando as contingências programadas e mantendo constante a instrução (e.g., L. C. Cerutti, 1991;Galizio, 1979;Hayes et al, 1986;Lowe, Harzem, & Spencer, 1979;Matthews, Shimoff, Catania, & Sagvolden, 1977;Paracampo et al, 2001;Shimoff et al, 1981). Outra estratégia envolve manipular a instrução, mantendo constante a contingência programada (e.g., L. C. Albuquerque et al, 2003;L.…”