Sensitivity and Strength: Effects Of Instructions on Resistance to Change

Abstract

Several research laboratories have found that instructed behavior can be less sensitive to changes in contingencies than shaped behavior. The current experiment examined whether these differences in sensitivity could be related to resistance to change . Two groups of subjects, who were matched on the basis of an initial disruption assessment, were exposed to a variable-interval 30-s schedule of reinforcement with and without a disrupter. The disrupter was a video presentation of a popular television situation comedy. One group received minimal instructions (MI) that told them only that they could earn points exchangeable for money. Each member of the second group received a complete instruction (CI) that described the topography of the target response that was yoked to a MI subject's stable baseline response rate. The response rates under the disruption condition for the CI subjects were more resistant to change than the MI subjects in 14 out of 15 disruption sessions. These findings are discussed in terms of resistance to change being increased by instructional conditions like those manipulated and that the procedures used to test disruption provide an additional method to !waluate differences between instructed and contingency-governed behavior.Rules, instructions, policies, and directions are assumed to influence behavior and are used to teach, inform, or prescribe behavior in many kinds of situations. How rules affect behavior, however, is still not clearly understood. For this reason, research on the effect of rules on behavior has been a major focus for a number of researchers. Skinner (1969) defined rules as contingency-specifying discriminative stimuli (SO) that describe behavior and the controlling environment. In defining rules, Skinner emphasized the differences between behavior that is influenced by direct contact with contingencies of reinforcement and behavior that is influenced by descriptions of those contingenciEls. According to Skinner, contingency-governed behavior is selected by direct contact with the consequences for the behavior in question whereas rule-governed Correspondence may be sent to Philip N.

Searching for the variables that control human rule‐governed “insensitivity”

“…In contrast, allowing the environmental contingencies to shape behavior may take more time and include more variability in behavior (Joyce & Chase, 1990). However, research into what is called rule-governed "contingency insensitivity" (Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle, Rosenfarb, & Korn, 1986) also suggests the potential for an important disadvantage: Rule-governed behavior may be insensitive to changes in the underlying contingencies (Baron & Galizio, 1983;Baron, Kaufman, & Stauber, 1969;Galizio, 1979;Hackenberg & Joker, 1994;Hayes, Brownstein, Hass, & Greenway, 1986;Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle et al, 1986;Joyce & Chase, 1990;Newman, Buffington, & Hemmes, 1995;Podlesnik & Chase, 2006;Shimoff, Cantania, & Matthews, 1981;Shimoff, Matthews, & Catania, 1986). The purpose of the two experiments outlined below was to investigate potential causes of rule-governed insensitivity.…”

Function-Altering Effects of Rule Phrasing in the Modulation of Instructional Control

“…This finding has stimulated several areas of research evaluating variables and methodological manipulations that affect the relative degree of rule following. Research indicates rule-governed behavior may be modulated by several variables, including completeness of the rules (e.g., Podlesnik & Chase, 2006), feedback on the performance of a task (Baron et al, 1969), the function-altering phrasing of the rules (e.g., Schlinger & Blakely, 1987;Zettle & Young, 1987), changes in the contingencies and accuracy of the rules (e.g., Baumann, Abreu-Rodrigues, & da Silva Souza, 2009;Fox & Pietras, 2013;Hackenberg & Joker, 1994), and the degree of discrepancy between stated rules or instructions 1 and actual reinforcement contingencies (e.g., DeGrandpre & Buskist, 1991;Galizio, 1979). For example, results from Galizio suggest that responding in an avoidance paradigm will follow the instruction when the instruction is accurate; however, responding may deviate when instructions are inaccurate and individuals contact the actual contingency in the form of the loss of points.…”

O efeito de instruções e de mudanças de instruções sobre o comportamento em DRL

“…Entretanto, não era possível saber se o comportamento dos que receberam instrução correspondente estava sob o controle da instrução, das contingências ou da interação entre ambos (cf. Albuquerque et al, 2008;Albuquerque & Paracampo, 2010 Calixto et al, 2014;Hayes, Brownstein, Zettle et al, 1986;Joyce & Chase, 1990;Podlesnik & Chase, 2006;Rosenfarb et al, 1992;Shimoff et al, 1981), apontaram que o comportamento modelado pelas contingências (ou expostos diretamente às contingências com instrução mínima, como os do Grupo Controle e IM do presente estudo) foi mais sensível à mudança do que o comportamento instruído (como os do Grupo IC do presente estudo).…”