Function-Altering Effects of Rule Phrasing in the Modulation of Instructional Control

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of four instructional variants on instruction following under changing reinforcement schedules using an operant task based on Hackenberg and Joker's Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 367-383 (1994) experimental preparation. Sixteen college-aged adults served as participants and were randomly assigned to one of four instruction conditions (directive, generic, non-directive, and control). Results suggest textual verbal behavior modulated instruction following. Specifically, directive and generic instructions produced greater levels of instructional control and relatively lower levels of schedule control compared to nondirective instructions. Thus, participants in the directive and generic groups responded in accordance with the instructions even when schedules of reinforcement favored deviation from the instructed pattern. In contrast, participants in the non-directive group responded toward the optimal pattern. In the control condition, participant responding was variable but toward the optimal pattern. Findings are interpreted within the framework of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior and formulation of rule governance. Keywords Rule-governed behavior. Instructional control. Schedule control. Progressive-time schedules. Fixed-time schedules. Verbal behavior. Adult humans Skinner defined rules as discriminative stimuli that specify a contingency (1966, 1969). Skinner's formulation of rule-governed behavior offers a behavioral account of

Examining the Moderating Impact of Plys and Tracks on the Insensitivity Effect: a Preliminary Investigation

“…First, we expected participants who were given any type of (initially accurate) instruction to demonstrate evidence of the IE. In-line with previous work (e.g., Donadeli & Strapasson, 2015;Harte et al, 2017;Hayes et al, 1986c;Henley et al, 2017;Kudadjie-Gyamfi & Rachlin, 2001;Ninnes & Ninnes, 1998;Otto et al, 1999), we obtained support for this hypothesis, such that participants in the ply and track group were more likely than those in the no-instructions group to select the MLCS after the programmed contingency reversal.…”

“…As an aside, it is important to acknowledge that although the definitions of plys and tracks stress consequences for rule-following which are speaker-mediated (plys) or contingent upon the way the world is arranged (tracks), they often also differ in their directive nature. For example, Miller et al (2014) noted that the differential impact of plys and tracks on the IE may be due to the fact that plys are generally more directive than tracks (also see Henley et al, 2017). In the current experiment, the plys and tracks might have also differed in this way given that participants in the ply group were told that the experimenter wanted them to select the MLCS, whereas those in the track group were told they should only select the MLCS if they wanted to gain points.…”

“…The results of Baruch et al (2007), Henley et al (2017), McAuliffe et al (2014 Experiment 2), and Miller et al (2014) are largely inconsistent and can be summarized as follows. Baruch et al (2007) and McAuliffe et al (2014) examined whether plys and tracks occasioned different levels of the IE in dysphoric and non-dysphoric students.…”

“…The latter pattern of results was also observed in the low dysphoric group irrespective of the type of rule (ply or track) provided. Finally, Miller et al (2014) and Henley et al (2017) examined the moderating effects of instructions phrased as "you must …" (plys) and "you might consider …" (tracks) on the IE in a student population. In both studies plys occasioned a larger IE compared to tracks.…”

“…Although all four studies provide valuable information about the extent to which plys and tracks moderate the IE, only Henley et al (2017) included a no-instructions group (i.e., a control group). As such, no conclusions can be drawn concerning the extent to which the instructions (plys and tracks) used in Baruch et al, 2007, McAuliffe et al, 2014 andMiller et al, 2014 undermined participants' adaptation to the contingency change.…”