Interaction of Contingencies and Rule Instructions in the Performance of Human Subjects in Conditional Discrimination
Three experiments were made to study the interaction of consequences and rule instructions in conditional discriminations of human subjects. Using a matching-to-sample situation involving similarity and difference stimulus relations, the following variables were evaluated: (a) correspondence of rule instructions with task requirements, (b) alternation of matching tasks under self-generated rules, and (c) differential consequences in terms of different densities of outcome information. The results suggest that instructions and consequences interact in complex ways, and that rule-like instructions are not a sufficient criterion to identify rule-governed behavior.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- BARON, A., & GALIZIO, M. (1983). Instructional control of human behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.Google Scholar
- BENNETT, J. (1971). Rationality: An essay toward an analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- CATANIA, A. C. (1985). Rule-governed behavior and origins of language. In C. F. Lowe, M. Richelle, D. E. Blackman, & C. M. Bradshaw (Eds.), behavior analysis and contemporary psychology (pp. 135–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- RIBES, E., & LOPEZ, F. (1985). Teoria de la conducta: Un analisis de campo y parametrico. Mexico: Trillas.Google Scholar
- RYLE, G. (1979). On thinking. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- SCHOENFELD, W. N., & COLE, B. K. (1972). Stimulus schedules: The t-Z systems. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
- SKINNER, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
- WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar