Fixed interval performance as related to instructions and to subjects’ verbalizations of the contingency

Abstract

Fixed interval performance as related to instructions and to subjects' verbalizations of the contingency 1Sixteen female Ss earned a total of 50 reinforcements on a FI 20 sec reinforcement schedule. The reinforcers used were points on a counter. The Ss were instructed that the re'inforcement contingency involved either the number of responses, or an interval of time, or Ss were given no information about the schedule. The Ss' performance was related not only to instructions, but also to Ss' verbalizations of the reinforcement contingency.

Human performance on random ratio and random interval schedules, performance awareness and verbal instructions

“…The difference between human and nonhuman schedule response patterns may hold some significance in terms of understanding the underlying factors that control schedule behavior in humans (see Leander, Lippman, & Meyer, 1968;Lippman & Meyer, 1967;Lowe, 1979;Lowe, Harzem, & Hughes, 1978;Weiner, 1964Weiner, , 1969Weiner, , 1970. At present, the reasons for contingency-sensitive versus contingencyinsensitive human responding on schedules are unclear, but differentiated patterns of responding have been linked to factors such as whether the reinforcer requires a consummatory response , the type of reinforcement employed (Lowe, Harzem, & Bagshaw, 1978), whether performance is shaped or instructed by experimenters (Catania et al, 1982;Matthews, Catania, & Shimoff, 1985;Matthews et al, 1977;Shimoff et al, 1981;Shimoff, Matthews, & Catania, 1986), and to the degree that the participants demonstrate contingency or performance awareness (Bradshaw & Reed, 2012;Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle, Rosenfarb, & Korn, 1986b;Wearden & Shimp, 1985b).…”

Differential Reinforcement of Human Self-Reports about Schedule Performances

“…, Catania et aI. , 1982), and found that performances under reinforcement schedules we re related to verbalizations of the schedule contingencies (Kerr & Keenan, 1997;Lippman & Meyer, 1967;Lowe, 1979;Vaughan , 1989). The present reports were about what the subjects had done and were collected at every trial.…”

“…The previous studies on schedule sensitivity obtained verbal reports about schedule contingencies from postexperimental questionnaires (e.g., Lippman & Meyer, 1967), or after every block of minutes (e.g. , Catania et aI.…”

“…First, there was a systematic relation between performances under reinforcement schedules and verbal descriptions of the schedule contingencies (see reviews by Kerr & Keenan , 1997;Lowe, 1979;Vaughan, 1989). For example, Lippman and Meyer (1967) asked their subjects the condition for producing reinforcers following the experiment with a fixed -interval schedule. Subjects who responded at a high rate reported that a number of responses were required for the reinforcers, whereas subjects who responded at a low rate reported that reinforcers were available after an interval of time.…”

“…For example, the reports in the studies of the schedule sensitivity were concerning not what the subjects had done but what schedules had been in effect, and were collected not after every single exposure to a trial but after exposure to a number of reinforcers or to the entire experiment. With these limitations, their findings (e.g ., Catania et ai., 1982;Lippman & Meyer, 1967) suggest that the results of self-reports (e.g. , Critchfield, 1993aCritchfield, , 1993bCritchfield, , 1994Critchfield, , 1996aCritchfield, , 1996bCritchfield & Perone, 1990a, 1990b, 1993 may be replicated when the referent is a schedule performance.…”