Abstract
AbstractThe aim of this study was to model a situation that induced choice between following two incompatible rules, each associated with a different rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, eight undergraduate students were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule (training). In each component, there was a concurrent variable interval (VI)–extinction (EXT) schedule. Participants were given two rules that instructed them to respond to the VI alternative in the presence of different discriminative stimuli. The side of the VI schedule changed in each component and offered a different reinforcer rate according to the discriminative stimuli in the operation. When both discriminative stimuli were concurrently presented (test), participants favored the alternative previously instructed by the rule, which was associated with the greatest reinforcer rate, whereas indifference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Experiment 2 tested the effects of reinforcement rate using the same procedure without providing rules. During training, participants gradually developed a preference for the VI alternatives. In the choice test phase, participants favored the alternative associated with the stimuli with the highest reinforcer rate when both discriminative stimuli were present. Unsystematic preference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Two alternative explanations were provided for the findings.
Funder
Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencias y Tecnologías
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference74 articles.
1. Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1964). Reinforcement and instructions with mental patients. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7(4), 327–331. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1964.7-327
2. Barnes-Holmes, D., O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R. T., & Lyddy, F. (2002). Understanding and Verbal Regulation. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of language and cognition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47638-X_6
3. Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33(4), 495–520. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-16929-001.
4. Baron, A., & Perone, M. (1998). Experimental design and analysis in the laboratory study of human operant behavior. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 45–91). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1947-2_3
5. Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 20(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137