INSTRUCTIONS, MULTIPLE SCHEDULES, AND EXTINCTION: DISTINGUISHING RULE-GOVERNED FROM SCHEDULE-CONTROLLED BEHAVIOR

• Published in: Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior 1986-09, Vol.46 (2), p.137-147
• Main Authors: Hayes, Steven C., Brownstein, Aaron J., Haas, Joseph R., Greenway, David E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: adult humans; Biological and medical sciences; button press; contingency insensitivity; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Learning. Memory; multiple schedules; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Psychometrics; rule-governed behavior; schedule-controlled behavior; verbal control
• ISSN: 0022-5002; 1938-3711
• DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-137

Schedule sensitivity has usually been examined either through a multiple schedule or through changes in schedules after steady‐state responding has been established. This study compared the effects of these two procedures when various instructions were given. Fifty‐five college students responded in two 32‐min sessions under a multiple fixed‐ratio 18/differential‐reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate 6‐s schedule, followed by one session of extinction. Some subjects received no instructions regarding the appropriate rates of responding, whereas others received instructions to respond slowly, rapidly, or both. Relative to the schedule in operation, the instructions were minimal, partially inaccurate, or accurate. When there was little schedule sensitivity in the multiple schedule, there was little in extinction. When apparently schedule‐sensitive responding occurred in the multiple schedule, however, sensitivity in extinction occurred only if differential responding in the multiple schedule could not be due to rules supplied by the experimenter. This evidence shows that rule‐governed behavior that occurs in the form of schedule‐sensitive behavior may not in fact become schedule‐sensitive even though it makes contact with the scheduled reinforcers.