Abstract
Experimental conditions explored the development of fallacious rules and assessed the rates and durations of superstitious responding by children under the influence of standard and second-order response-independent reinforcement. During the presentation of computer-generated math problems, subjects in Experiment 1 had access to a computer and keyboard. Group 1 received second-order, random-time (RT) reinforcement by way of a coin toss graphic procedure (mean reinforcement rate of 1/min). This procedure rendered an effect analogous to a “slot-machine” and matching icons produced monetary reinforcement displayed on the computer screen. A second group obtained response-independent reinforcement according to a standard random-time (RT) 30-s schedule (mean reinforcement rate of 2/min). A control group received no scheduled consequences but was exposed to the same demand conditions. After 10 min, students in all groups answered questions regarding “why” they had performed problems. Subsequently, experimental subjects were exposed to the same conditions for 10 min after which reinforcement was terminated; however, a series of problems remained available for solving. Over the course of the experiment, and particularly during extinction, Group 1 subjects performed at higher rates and longer durations. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, but it examined the effects of second-order response-independent reinforcement on fixed-time (FT) schedules. Students who had been exposed to second-order response-independent reinforcement demonstrated higher rates and longer durations of problem solving. Outcomes suggest that, independent of FT or RT schedules, second-order response-independent contingencies appear to generate elaborate fallac ious rules and particularly long durations of superstitious responding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
BELFIORE, P. J., LEE, D. L., VARGAS, A. U., & SKINNER, C. H. (1997). Effects of high-preference single-digit mathematics problems completion on multiple-digit mathematics problems performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 327–330.
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.
CERUTTI, D. T. (1991). Discriminative versus reinforcing properties of schedules as determinants of schedule insensitivity in humans. The Psychological Record, 41, 51–67.
CERUTTI, D. T. (1994). Compliance with instructions: Effects of randomness in scheduling and monitoring. The Psychological Record, 44, 259–269.
EDGINGTON, E. S. (1995). Randomization tests. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
DERMER, M. L., & RODGERS, J. G. (1997). Schedule control over following instructions comprised of novel combinations of verbal stimuli. The Psychological Record, 47, 243–260.
DIXON, M., & HAYES, L. (1998). Self-rules, accurate rules, and inaccurate rules: Gambling as a verbally maintained behavior. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, Orlando, Fl.
FINDLY, J. D., & BRADY, J. V. (1965). Facilitation of large ratio performance by use of conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 8, 125–129.
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 22nd Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, Washington, DC.
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.
HELTZER, R. A., & VYSE, S. A. (1994). Intermittent consequences and problem solving: The experimental control of “superstitious” beliefs. The Psychological Record, 44, 155–169.
LATTAL, K. A., & ABREU-RODRIGUES, J. (1997). Response-independent events in the behavior stream. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 375–398.
LEIGHLAND, S. (1996). An experimental analysis of ongoing verbal behavior: Reinforcement, verbal operants, and superstitious behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 79–104.
LEE, V. L. (1996). Superstitious location changes by human beings. The Psychological Record, 46, 71–86.
MACE, F. C., HOCK, M. L., LALLI, J. S., WEST, B. J., BELFIORE, P., & BROWN, D. K. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123–141.
MALOTT, R. W., WHALEY, D. L., & MALOTT, M. E. (1997). Elementary principles of behavior: Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
NEWMAN, B., BUFFINGTON, D. M., & HEMMES, N. S. (1995). The effects of schedules of reinforcement on instruction following. The · Psychological Record, 45, 463–476.
NINNESS, H. A C., & NINNESS, S. K. (1998). Superstitious math performance: Interactions between rules and scheduled contingencies. The Psychological Record, 48, 45–62.
NINNESS, H. A. C., GLENN, S. S., & ELLIS, J. (1993). Assessment and treatment of emotional or behavioral disorders. Westport, CT: Praeger.
ANA, 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.
RADIN, D. I. (1997). The conscious universe: The scientific truth of psychic phenomena. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
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.
SCHLINGER, H., & BLAKELY, E. (1987). Function altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41–45.
SKINNER, B. F. (1948). “Superstition” in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.
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.
WAGNER, G. A., & MORRIS, E. K., (1987). “Superstitious” behavior in children. The Psychological Record, 37, 471–488.
VYSE, S. A. (1991). Behavioral variability and rule generation: General, restricted, and superstitious contingency statements. The Psychological Record, 41, 487–506.
ZIMMERMAN, D. W. (1957). Durable secondary reinforcement: Method and theory. Psychological Review, 64, 373–383.
ZIMMERMAN, D. W. (1959). Sustained performance in rats based on secondary reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52, 353–358.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ninness, H.A.C., Ninness, S.K. Contingencies of Superstition: Self-Generated Rules and Responding During Second-Order Response-Independent Schedules. Psychol Rec 49, 221–243 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395318
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395318