The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 565–586 | Cite as

Interaction of Contingencies and Rule Instructions in the Performance of Human Subjects in Conditional Discrimination

  • Emilio Ribes Inesta
  • Hector Martinez Sanchez


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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BAER, D. M., PETERSON, R. R., & SHERMAN, J. A. (1967). The development of imitation by reinforcing behavioral similarity to a model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 10, 405–416.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. BARON, A., & GALIZIO, M. (1983). Instructional control of human behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.Google Scholar
  3. BENNETT, J. (1971). Rationality: An essay toward an analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. CATANIA, A. C., MCATTHEWS, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. FERSTER, C. B., & SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HARZEM, P., LOWE, C. F., & BAGSHAW, M. (1978). Verbal control in human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 28, 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. HAYES, S. C. (1986). The case of the silent dog-verbal reports and the analysis of rules: A review of Ericksson and Simon’s “Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 45, 351–363.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. LEANDER, J. D., LIPPMAN, L. G., & MEYER, M. E. (1968). Fixed interval performance as related to subject’s verbalization of the reinforcement contingency. The Psychological Record, 18, 469–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. LOWE, C. F., BEASTY, A., & BAGSHAW, R. P. (1983). The role of verbal behavior in human learning: Infant performance on fixed-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 39, 157–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. LOWE, C. R., HARZEM, P., & HUGHES, S. (1978). Determinants of operant behaviour in humans: Some differences from animals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 373–386.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. MARTIN, J. A. (1972). The effect of incongruent instructions and consequences on imitation in retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 467–475.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. MATTHEWS, B. A., SHIMOFF, E., CATANIA, A. C., & SAGVOLDEN, T. (1977). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of Experimental Analysis of behavior, 27, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. RIBES, E., & LOPEZ, F. (1985). Teoria de la conducta: Un analisis de campo y parametrico. Mexico: Trillas.Google Scholar
  16. ROSENFELD, H. M., & BAER, D. M. (1969). Unnoticed verbal conditioning of an aware experimenter by a more aware subject: The double-agent effect. Psychological Review, 76, 425–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. RYLE, G. (1979). On thinking. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. SHIMOFF, E., CATANIA, A. C., & MATTHEWS, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Responsivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 36, 207–220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. SCHOENFELD, W. N., & COLE, B. K. (1972). Stimulus schedules: The t-Z systems. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  20. SKINNER, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  21. STREIFEL, S., & WETHERBY, B. (1973). Instruction-following behavior of a retarded child and its controlling stimuli. Journal of Applied behavior Analysis, 6, 663–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. STREIFEL, S., WETHERBY, B., & KARLAN, G. R. (1976). Establishing generalized verb-noun instruction-following skills in retarded children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. WEINER, H. (1964). Conditioning history and human fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 7, 383–385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. WEINER, H. (1969). Controlling human fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of behavior, 12, 349–373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emilio Ribes Inesta
    • 1
  • Hector Martinez Sanchez
    • 1
  1. 1.National University of Mexico-Iztacala Insurgentes SurMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations