Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 31–57 | Cite as

Effects of Differential Reinforcement and Rules With Feedback on Preference for Choice and Verbal Reports

  • Allen Karsina
  • Rachel H. Thompson
  • Nicole M. Rodriguez
  • Nicholas R. Vanselow
Article

Abstract

We evaluated the effects of differential reinforcement and accurate verbal rules with feedback on the preference for choice and the verbal reports of 6 adults. Participants earned points on a probabilistic schedule by completing the terminal links of a concurrent-chains arrangement in a computer-based game of chance. In free-choice terminal links, participants selected 3 numbers from an 8-number array; in restricted-choice terminal links participants selected the order of 3 numbers preselected by a computer program. A pop-up box then informed the participants if the numbers they selected or ordered matched or did not match numbers generated by the computer but not displayed; matching in a trial resulted in one point earned. In baseline sessions, schedules of reinforcement were equal across free- and restricted-choice arrangements and a running tally of points earned was shown each trial. The effects of differentially reinforcing restricted-choice selections were evaluated using a reversal design. For 4 participants, the effects of providing a running tally of points won by arrangement and verbal rules regarding the schedule of reinforcement were also evaluated using a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline-across-participants design. Results varied across participants but generally demonstrated that (a) preference for choice corresponded more closely to verbal reports of the odds of winning than to reinforcement schedules, (b) rules and feedback were correlated with more accurate verbal reports, and (c) preference for choice corresponded more highly to the relative number of reinforcements obtained across free- and restricted-choice arrangements in a session than to the obtained probability of reinforcement or to verbal reports of the odds of winning.

Key words

choice preference differential reinforcement concurrent-chains arrangement rule-governed behavior self-rules probabilistic verbal reports 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1964). Rein-forcement and instructions with mental patients. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 327–331. doi:10. 1901/jeab.1964.7–327CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, A., Kaufman, A., & Stauber, K. A. (1969). Effects of instruction and reinforcement-feedback on human operant behavior maintained by fixed-interval reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 701–712. doi:10.1901/jeab.1969.12–701CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, A., & Perone, M. (1982). The place of the human subject in the operant laboratory. The Behavior Analyst, 5, 143–158.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bernstein, B. J. (1988). Laboratory lore and research practices in the experimental analysis of human behavior: Designing session logistics—How long, how often, how many? The Behavior Analyst, 11, 51–58.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bicard, D. F., & Neef, N. A. (2002). Effects of strategic versus tactical instructions on adaption to changing contingencies in children with ADHD. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 375–389. doi:10. 1901/jaba.2002.35-375CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Catania, A. C. (1975). Freedom and knowledge: An experimental analysis of preference in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 89–106. doi:10.1901/jeab.1975.24-89CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Catania, A. C., & Cutts, D. (1963). Experimental control of superstitious responding in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 203–208. doi:10. 1901/jeab.1963.6-203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248. doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.38-233CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1980). Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 77–86. doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.34-77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Cerutti, D. T. (1991). Discriminative versus reinforcing properties of schedules as determinants of schedule insensitivity in humans. The Psychological Record, 41, 51–67.Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, M. R. (2000). Manipulating the illusion of control: Variations in gambling as a function of perceived control over chance outcomes. The Psychological Record, 50, 705–719.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Piazza, C. C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423–438. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53–70. doi:10.1901/jeab.1979.31-53CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Hackenberg, T. D., & Joker, V. R. (1994). Instructional versus schedule control of humans’ choices in situations of diminishing returns. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 367–383. doi:10.1901/jeab.1994.62–367CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Contrucci, S. A., & Maglieri, K. M. (1997). Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 459–473. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256. doi:10.1901/jeab. 1986.45-237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Hefferline, R. F., Keenan, B., & Harford, R. A. (1959). Escape and avoidance in human subjects without their observation of the response. Science, 130, 1338–1339. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1756871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Home, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1993). Determinants of human performance on concurrent schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 29–60. doi: 10.1901/jeab. 1993.59-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joyce, J. J., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 251–262. doi: 10.1901/jeab. 1990.54-251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Karsina, A., Thompson, R. H., & Rodriguez, N. M. (2011). Effects of a history of differential reinforcement on preference for choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 95, 189–202. doi: 10. 1901/jeab.2011.95-189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaufman, A., Baron, A., & Kopp, R. E. (1966). Some effects of instructions on human operant behavior. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1, 243–250.Google Scholar
  24. Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., Rainville, B., Adelinis, J. D., Crosland, K., & Kogan, J. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 411–422. doi: 10. 1901/jaba.1997.30-411CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Lippman, L. G., & Meyer, M. E. (1967). Fixed-interval performance as related to instructions and to subjects’ verbalizations of the contingency. Psychonomic Science, 8, 135–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luczynksi, K. C., & Hanley, G. P. (2009). Do children prefer contingencies? An evaluation of the efficacy of and preference for contingent versus noncontingent social reinforcement during play. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 511–525. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luczynksi, K. C., & Hanley, G. P. (2010). Examining the generality of children’s preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 397–409. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1977). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 453–467. doi: 10.1901/jeab. 1977.27-453CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Mazur, J. E. (1996). Past experience, recency, and spontaneous recovery in choice behavior. Animal Learning & Behavior, 24, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neuringer, A. J. (1969). Animals respond for food in the presence of free food. Science, 166, 399–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt, A. C., Hanley, G. P., & Layer, S. A. (2009). A further analysis of the value of choice: Controlling for illusory discriminative stimuli and evaluating the effects of less preferred items. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 711–716. doi: 10. 1901/jaba.2009.42-711CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189–204. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Shimoff, E. (1986). Post-session verbal reports and the experimental analysis of behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4, 19–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructedhuman responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 207–220. doi: 10.1901/jeab. 1981.26-207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson, R. H., Fisher, W. W., & Contrucci, S. A. (1998). Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 181–188. doi:10891-4222/98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Hernandez, E. (2006). An evaluation of the value of choice with preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 1–16. doi:10.1901/jaba.2006.39-16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Torgurd, L. J., & Holborn, S. W. (1990). The effects of verbal performance descriptions on nonverbal operant responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 273–291. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Voss, S. C., & Homzie, M. J. (1970). Choice as a value. Psychological Reports, 26, 912–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiner, H. (1970). Instructional control of human operant responding during extinction following fixed-ratio conditioning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 391–394. doi:10.1901/jeab. 1970.13-391CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen Karsina
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rachel H. Thompson
    • 3
  • Nicole M. Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Nicholas R. Vanselow
    • 2
  1. 1.Western New England UniversityWest BoylstonUSA
  2. 2.New England Center for ChildrenWest BoylstonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyWestern New England UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations