The Psychological Record

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 45–62 | Cite as

Superstitious Math Performance: Interactions between Rules and Scheduled Contingencies

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Experimental conditions were designed to examine students’ sensitivity to scheduled contingencies and accurate or fallacious rules as these variables influence performance during computer-generated math problems. Experimental subjects were provided: scheduled contingencies followed by extinction, follow-up extinction, and a rules condition promulgating accurate or fallacious rules for accessing reinforcement. Control subjects did not have access to rules; however, sensitivity to direct-acting contingencies was measured during response independent reinforcement. Performing with accurate rules and scheduled contingencies, most experimental subjects correctly answered math problems at accelerated rates and extended durations. Also, providing fallacious rules during response independent reinforcement induced high rates and extended durations of superstitious responding. However, for most students response independent reinforcement, without rules, was insufficient to induce such behavior. Evidence from this study suggests that maintenance of high rate superstitious responding requires exposure to a fallacious rule in conjunction with making contact with response independent reinforcement. Implications from this study support the theory that superstitious behavior may become self-sustaining by precluding one’s opportunities to contact the null effects of not performing in accordance with fallacious rules. Ramifications regarding interactions between verbal fallacies and coincidental reinforcement are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BARON, A., PERONE, M., & GALIZIO, M. (1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. CATANIA, A. C., MATTHEWS, B. A., & SHIMOFF, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. CATANIA, A. C., SHIMOFF, E., & MATTHEWS, B. (1989). An experimental analysis of rule-governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 119–150). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CERUTTI, D. T (1991). Discriminative versus reinforcing properties of schedules as determinants of schedule insensitivity in humans. The Psychological Record, 41, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. EDGINGTON, Eugene S. (1995). Randomization tests. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. FISHER, W. W., NINNESS, H. A. C., PIAZZA, C. C., & OWEN-DESCHRYVER, J. S. (1996). On the reinforcing effects of the content of verbal attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 235–238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. FISHER, W. W., PIAZZA, C. C., Zarcone, J. R., O’CONNER, J., & NINNESS, H. A. C. (1995, May). On the clinical and theoretical implications of molar and molecular functional assessment. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. HACKENBERG, T D., & JOKER, V. R. (1994). Instructional versus schedule control of human choices in situations of diminishing returns. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 367–383.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. HAGOPIAN, L. P., FISHER, W. W., & LEGACY, S. M. (1994). Schedule effects of noncontingent reinforcement on attention-maintained destructive behavior in identical quadruplets. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 317–325.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. HASTINGS, R. P., REMINGTON, B., & HALL, M. (1995). Adults’ responses to self-injurious behavior. Behavior Modification, 19, 425–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. HAYES, S. C., ZETTLE, R. D., & ROSENFARB, I. (1989). Rule following. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies and instructional control (pp. 191–220). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. HELTZER, R. A., & VYSE, S. A. (1994). Intermittent consequences and problem solving: The experimental control of “superstitious” beliefs. The Psychological Record, 44, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. LEE, V. L. (1996). Superstitious location chances by human beings. The Psychological Record, 46, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MALOTT, R. W., WHALEY, D. L., & MALOTT, M. E. (1997). Elementary principles of behavior: Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. NEWMAN, B., BUFFINGTON, D. M., & HEMMES, N. S. (1995). The effects of schedules of reinforcement on instruction following. The Psychological Record, 45, 463–476.Google Scholar
  16. NINNESS, H. A. C., GLENN, S. S., & ELLIS, J. (1993). Assessment and treatment of emotional or behavioral disorders. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  17. ONO, K. (1994). Verbal control of superstitious behavior: Superstitions as false rules. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, M. Sato, & K. Ono (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition (pp. 181–196). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  18. ROSENFARB, I. S., NEWLAND, M. C., BRANNON, S. E., & HOWEY, D. S. (1992). Effects of self-generated rules on the development of schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 107–121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. SCHLINGER, H., & BLAKELY, E. (1987). Function altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. SKINNER, B. F. (1948). “Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. STADDON, J. E. R., & SIMMELHAG, V. L. (1971). The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. VYSE, S. A. (1991). Behavioral variability and rule generation: General, restricted, and superstitious contingency statements. The Psychological Record, 41, 487–506.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School Psychology/Behavior Analysis ProgramStephen F. Austin State UniversityNacogdochesUSA
  2. 2.Nacogdoches Independent School DistrictUSA

Personalised recommendations