Abstract
The effects of two types of mands on participants’ adherence to instructions were examined across two groups using procedures based on Hackenberg and Joker (Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 62:367–383, 1994). Participants were presented with instructions describing a pattern of responding for producing points later exchanged for money and were exposed to choice trials in which a progressive-time (PT) and a fixed-time (FT) schedule were concurrently available. The instructions initially described how to optimize point production; however, the PT schedule was manipulated over the course of the experiment such that response patterns maximizing point production differed across conditions. All participants experienced the same experimental arrangement, and the two groups differed only in the form of the mand contained in the instructions presented to them. The instructions for the directive group contained the mand “you must…” (i.e., command) preceding the instructed response pattern, whereas the non-directive group instructions contained the mand “you might consider…” (i.e., suggestion) preceding the instructed response pattern. Results indicated that instruction type influenced response patterns across changing contingencies. The directive group exhibited greater adherence to the instruction than the non-directive group when instruction following was less profitable. Results are interpreted in terms of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior, and implications for practical application are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The behavioral perspective of rules implies a functional definition that involves discriminated responding in the presence of a verbal antecedent. This is in contrast to more colloquial definitions that need not invoke compliance to the verbal antecedent stimulus. The use of the word “rule” throughout the remainder of this article refers to the behavioral definition that is functionally determined by its discriminative effects on behavior (i.e., verbal governance; Catania 2006).
References
Baron, A., Perone, M., & Galizio, M. (1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95–105.
Bicard, D. F., & Neef, N. A. (2002). Effects of strategic versus tactical instructions on adaptation to changing contingencies in children with ADHD. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 375–389. doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-375.
Branch, M. N. (1991). On the difficulty of studying “basic” behavioral processes in humans. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 107–110.
Catania, A. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of words. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 89–100.
Catania, A. C., Matthews, 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. doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.38-233.
Daniels, A. C. (1994). Bringing out the best in people: how to apply the astonishing power of positive reinforcement. New York: McGraw Hill.
Doll, B. B., Jacobs, W. J., Sanfey, A. G., & Frank, M. J. (2009). Instructional control of reinforcement learning: a behavioral and neurocomputational investigation. Brain Research, 1299, 74–94. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.007.
Drake, C. E., & Wilson, K. G. (2008). Instructional effects on performance in a matching-to-sample study. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 333–340. doi:10.1901/jeab.2008-89-333.
Fox, A. E., & Pietras, C. J. (2013). The effects of response-cost punishment on instructional control during a choice task. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 99, 346–361. doi:10.1002/jeab.20.
Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53–70. doi:10.1901/jeab.1979.31-53.
Glenn, S. S. (1987). Rules as environmental events. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 29–32.
Hackenberg, T. D., & Joker, V. R. (1994). Instructional versus schedule control of humans’ choices in situations of diminishing returns. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 367–383. doi:10.1901/jeab.1994.62-367.
Hayes, S. (Ed.). (1989). Rule-governed behavior: cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S. C. (1993). Rule governance: basic behavioral research and applied implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(6), 193–197.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986a). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–147. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.46-137.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986b). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525.
Raia, C. P., Shillingford, S. W., Miller, H. L., Jr., & Baier, P. S. (2000). Interaction of procedural factors in human performance on yoked schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 265–281. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.74-265.
Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41–45.
Schmitt, D. R. (1998). Effects of consequences of advice on patterns of rule control and rule choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 1–21. doi:10.1901/jeab.1998.70-1.
Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207–220. doi:10.1901/jeab.1981.36-207.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Vaughan, M. E. (1985). Repeated acquisition in the analysis of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 175–184. doi:10.1901/jeab.1985.44-175.
Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-governed behavior: a potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behavioral therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 73–118). New York: Academic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, J.R., Hirst, J.M., Kaplan, B.A. et al. Effects of Mands on Instructional Control: A Laboratory Simulation. Analysis Verbal Behav 30, 100–112 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-014-0015-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-014-0015-x