Effects of orienting instructions on sensitivity to scheduled contingencies

Abstract

Orienting instructions acquaint subjects with the experimental task and apparatus. Although orienting instructions are a common feature of operant research, their behavioral effects have not been extensively investigated. In the present study, each of four groups received a different set of orienting instructions prior to responding on a multiple fixed-interval, fixed-ratio schedule of reinforcement. Subjects who received the most detailed instructions, which specified the task and the response manipulandum, and in which subjects were advised to earn as many points as possible, showed the least amount of response variability, but they also showed the least sensitivity to programmed contingencies. Subjects that received the same instructions, minus the advice to maximize points, showed less between-subject variability than did the remaining two groups, and greater discrimination between schedule components than did all other groups. Subjects who received instructions that did not specify the task or response manipulandum showed considerable variability in responding and less sensitivity to programmed contingencies. Although orienting instructions may be required for subjects to contact the experimental contingencies, some orienting instructions influence subjects' sensitivity to the experimental contingencies more than others.In the experimental analysis of human behavior, instructions are typically used for two reasons: to orient subjects to the apparatus and task (i.e., orienting instructions), and to specify experimental contingencies (i.e., contingency-specifying instructions). Although effects of the latter on behavior have been investigated in some detail (for a review, see Baron & Galizio, 1983), the effects of the former have been examined only rarely (e.g., see Terrell, Bennett, Buskist, & Williams, 1986). Furthermore, although the effects of contingency-specifying instructions have been addressed, the effects of such instructions have typically not been separated from possible effects of orienting instructions per se, thus providing a possible methodological confound.In one study of the effects of orienting instructions (Terrell et al., 1986), four groups of subjects received different orienting instructions prior to being exposed to a fixedinterval (FI) schedule of reinforcement. Orienting instructions differentially affected response rates of subjects across each of the groups. Subjects in the group that was told to "earn as many points as possible" (maximum instructions) responded at the highest rates, and the group that received minimal instructions (no mention of the experimental task or apparatus) responded at the lowest rates. Terrell et al. concluded that orienting instructions may interact with contingency-specifying instructions to control human performance in operant contexts. Unfortunately, Terrell et al. did not examine the effects of orientin~ instructions on subjects' sensitivities to schedRequests for reprints may be addressed to Richard J. DeGrandpre or William Buskist, Psychology Depar...

Response Acquisition by Humans With Delayed Reinforcement

“…In Experiment 3 of Kaufman et al (1966), for example, four college students pressed a key 7 to 161 times per minute with no reinforcer deliveries during the first 30 min of the experiment, although neither shaping nor instructions about the operandum were given. On the other hand, the operant level of pressing a single bar for one college student was zero without instructions or shaping (DeGrandpre, Buskist, & Cush, 1990; also see Ader & Tatum, 1961;Ayllon & Azrin, 1964). Response acquisition is the transition from operant-level responding to steady-state responding (Sidman, 1960, pp.…”

Efeitos de instruções preliminares sobre o seguimento de regras

“…Quanto às manipulações realizadas nas instruções preliminares, os resultados do presente estudo também se encontram de acordo com a literatura que aponta que manipulações em trechos sobre materiais (DeGrandpre et al 1990;Simonassi et al 1997) e conseqüências (England & Buskist, 1995;Weiner, 1970) interferem no desempenho dos participantes. Na Fase 1 do presente estudo, a ausência de trechos sobre materiais dificultou a realização da tarefa, enquanto a ausên-cia de trechos sobre as conseqüências diminuiu a variação de respostas.…”

Efeitos De Instruções Preliminares, Específicas E Mínima Sobre Uma Tarefa Experimental E Seguimento De Instruções

“…Quanto aos efeitos da apresentação da instrução preliminar na realização da tarefa pelos participantes, os resultados do presente estudo sustentam a relevância desse tipo de investigação, de acordo com o que tem sido apontado na literatura (DeGrandpre et al, 1990;England & Buskist, 1995;Martinez & Tamayo, 2005;Simonassi et al, 1997;Weiner, 1970). A ausência de instruções preliminares descrevendo trechos sobre a tarefa, os materiais e as consequências programadas dificulta a realização da tarefa e mostra que os procedimentos que têm sido adotados, com o fornecimento de instruções preliminares, são importantes de ser mantidos nos estudos sobre regras, especialmente porque, conforme foi observado, sem a descrição precisa de como o participante deve realizar a tarefa, dificilmente se podem avaliar os efeitos de outras instruções fornecidas posteriormente.…”

“…Os resultados desses estudos apontam para uma relação entre a manipulação de trechos distintos das instruções, a instalação e a manutenção do comportamento de seguir instruções e o controle pelas contingências. Em DeGrandpre et al (1990), manipulações em trechos das instruções sobre o equipamento e a tarefa afetaram o controle pelos esquemas de reforçamento; em Simonassi et al (1997), trechos das instruções que descreviam termos das contingências também interferiram no desempenho dos participantes; em England e Buskist (1995), trechos com informações sobre as consequências de não seguir a instrução afetaram seu seguimento.…”