INSTRUCTIONAL VERSUS SCHEDULE CONTROL OF HUMANS' CHOICES IN SITUATIONS OF DIMINISHING RETURNS

Timothy D. Hackenberg · Veronica R. Joker

69 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Behavioral and Psychological Studies Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Abstract

Four adult humans chose repeatedly between a fixed-time schedule (of points later exchangeable for money) and a progressive-time schedule that began at 0 s and increased by a fixed number of seconds with each point delivered by that schedule. Each point delivered by the fixed-time schedule reset the requirements of the progressive-time schedule to its minimum value. Subjects were provided with instructions that specified a particular sequence of choices. Under the initial conditions, the instructions accurately specified the optimal choice sequence. Thus, control by instructions and optimal control by the programmed contingencies both supported the same performance. To distinguish the effects of instructions from schedule sensitivity, the correspondence between the instructed and optimal choice patterns was gradually altered across conditions by varying the step size of the progressive-time schedule while maintaining the same instructions. Step size was manipulated, typically in 1-s units, first in an ascending and then in a descending sequence of conditions. Instructions quickly established control in all 4 subjects but, by narrowing the range of choice patterns, they reduced subsequent sensitivity to schedule changes. Instructional control was maintained across the ascending sequence of progressive-time values for each subject, but eventually diminished, giving way to more schedule-appropriate patterns. The transition from instruction-appropriate to schedule-appropriate behavior was characterized by an increase in the variability of choice patterns and local increases in point density. On the descending sequence of progressive-time values, behavior appeared to be schedule sensitive, sometimes even optimally sensitive, but it did not always change systematically with the contingencies, suggesting the involvement of other factors.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 69 citations exist upstream.

References

1962On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.1981Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control 1989Rule-governed behavior : cognition, contingencies, and instructional control 1986RULE‐GOVERNED BEHAVIOR AND SENSITIVITY TO CHANGING CONSEQUENCES OF RESPONDING 1990Rational choice theory: Necessary but not sufficient.1979CONTINGENCY‐SHAPED AND RULE‐GOVERNED BEHAVIOR: INSTRUCTIONAL CONTROL OF HUMAN LOSS AVOIDANCE 1989Rule-Governed Behavior 1981UNINSTRUCTED HUMAN RESPONDING: SENSITIVITY OF LOW‐RATE PERFORMANCE TO SCHEDULE CONTINGENCIES

Cited by

2018Token reinforcement: Translational research and application 2001REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCIES AND SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT: SOME RECIPROCAL RELATIONS BETWEEN BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH 2015Contingency analysis of caregiver behavior: Implications for parent training and future directions 1996RECENT REINFORCEMENT‐SCHEDULE RESEARCH AND APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2014Antecedent and consequential control of derived instruction‐following

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.