Instructional Control: Role of Instructional History and Feedback in a Human Conditional Discrimination Task

  1. Héctor Martínez Sánchez
  2. David Herrera Aragón
  3. Vicente Pérez Fernández
Journal:
International journal of psychology and psychological therapy

ISSN: 1577-7057

Year of publication: 2025

Volume: 25

Issue: 3

Pages: 321-336

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: International journal of psychology and psychological therapy

Abstract

The main aim was to evaluate the effects of instructional history as a determinant of the control exerted by instructions and feedback on the performance of a conditional discrimination task. The 40 college students who participated were trained in a first-order, matching-to-sample procedure. One group (n= 10) was exposed to three phases with congruent instructions, followed by a fourth phase in which the instruction given was incongruent (Congruent Instruction Group). The second group (n= 10) was exposed to four phases but always received incongruent instructions (Incongruent Instruction Group). Both groups received feedback for each response. In the other two groups, minimal instructions were used, but subjects in one received feedback (Feedback Group), and the other did not receive it (No feedback Group). For all groups, after each experimental phase, a test session with different stimuli, minimal instruction, and no feedback was introduced. Correct responses were recorded. Data showed an instructional control in the Congruent and Incongruent groups compared to the control exerted by feedback. Nine of the ten participants from the Feedback Group showed markedly better performance than participants from the No feedback Group. The role of interaction between instructional history and current contingencies in controlling human behavior on conditional discrimination tasks and the functional property of instructional control is discussed

Bibliographic References

  • Aguirre AA, LeBlanc LA, Reavis A, Shillingsburg AM, Delfs CH, Miltenberger CA, & Symer KB (2019). Evaluating the effects of similar and distinct discriminative stimuli during auditory conditional discrimination training with children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 35, 21-38. Doi: 10.1007/s40616-019-00111-3
  • Baron A & Galizio M (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495-520.
  • Baron A, Kaufman A, & Stauber KA (1969). Effects of instructions and reinforcement feedback on human operant behavior maintained by fixed-interval reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(5), 701-712, Doi: 701-712. 10.1901/jeab.1969.12-701
  • Baron A & Menich SR (1985). Reaction times of younger and older men: effects of compound samples and a prechoice signal on delayed matching-to-sample performances. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 44, 1-14. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-1
  • Bentall RP, Dickins DW, & Fox SRA (1993). Naming and equivalence: Response latencies for emergent relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 187-214.
  • Bentall RP, Jones RM, & Dickins DW (1998). Errors and response latencies as a function of nodal distance in 5-member equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 49, 93-115.
  • Buskist WF & Miller HL (1986). Interaction between rules and contingencies in the control of human fixed-interval performance. The Psychological Record, 36, 109-116.
  • Carp CL, Peterson SP, Arkel AJ, Petursdottir AI, & Ingvarsson ET (2012). A further evaluation of picture prompts during auditory-visual conditional discrimination training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 737- 51. Doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-737.
  • Coon JT & Miguel CF (2012). The role of increased exposure to transfer-of-stimulus control procedures on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 657-666. Doi: 10.1901/ jaba.2012.45-657
  • Drake CD & Wilson KG (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
  • Galizio M (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31(1), 53-70. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-53
  • Hackenberg TD & Joker VR (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
  • Harte C, Barnes-Holmes D, Barnes-Holmes Y, & Kissi A (2020). The study of rule-governed behavior and derived stimulus relations: Bridging the gap. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43, 361-385. Doi: 10.1007/s40614- 020-00256-w
  • Hayes SC, Brownstein AJ, Haas JR, & Greenway DE (1986). 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
  • Joyce JH & Chase PN (1990). Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 251-262. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-251
  • Martínez H, Ortiz G, & González A (2007). Efectos diferenciales de instrucciones y consecuencias en ejecuciones de discriminación condicional humana. Psicothema, 19, 14-22.
  • Martínez H & Ribes E (1996). Interactions of contingencies and instructional history on conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 46, 301-318. Doi: 10.1007/BF03395531
  • Martínez H & Tamayo R (2005). Interactions of contingencies, instructional accuracy, and instructional history in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 55, 633-646. Doi: 10.1007/BF03395531
  • O’Hora D & Barnes-Holmes D (2004). Instructional control: Developing a Relational Frame analysis. International International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 263-284.
  • O’Hora D, Barnes-Holmes D, & Roche B (2001). Developing a procedure to model the establishment of instructional control. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 19, 13-15.
  • O’Hora D, Roche B, Barnes-Holmes D, & Smeets PM (2002). Response latencies to multiple derived stimulus relations: Testing two predictions of Relational Frame Theory. The Psychological Record, 52, 51-75. Doi: 10.1007/BF03395414
  • Okouchi H (1999). Instructions as discriminative stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 205-214. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.72-205
  • Podlesnik CA & Chase PN (2006). Sensitivity and strength: Effects of instructions on resistance to change. The Psychological Record, 56, 303-320. Doi: 10.1007/BF03395552
  • Raia CP, Shillingford SW, Miller JrHL, & Baier S (2000). Interaction of procedural factors in human performance on yoked schedules. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 265-281. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.74-265
  • Ribes E & Martínez H (1990). Interaction of contingencies and rule instructions in the performance of human subjects in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 40, 565-586. Doi: 10.1007/BF03399541
  • Shimoff E, Catania AC, & Mattheus BA (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
  • Sidman M (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in Psychology. New York: Basic Books Inc.
  • Silveira MV, Mackay HA, & de Rose J (2017). Measuring the “transfer of meaning” through members equivalence merged via a class-specific reinforcement procedure. Learning & Behavior, 46, 157-170. Doi: 10.3758/ s13420-017-0298-6
  • Skinner BF (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
  • Skinner BF (1969). An operant analysis of problem solving. In BF Skinner (Ed.), Contingencies of reinforcement (pp. 133-157). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  • Spencer TJ & Chase PN (1966). Speed analyses of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 643-659. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-643
  • Stebbins WC & Lanson RN (1961). A technique for measuring the latency of a discriminative operant. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 149-55. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-149.
  • Sundberg ML & Sundberg CA (2011). Intraverbal behavior and verbal conditional discriminations in typically developing children and children with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 23-44. Doi: 10.1007/ s40616-019-00111-3
  • Tomanari GY, Sidman M, Rubio A, & Dube WV (2006). Equivalence Classes with Requirements for Short Response Latencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85, 349-369. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.107-04
  • Vaughan M (1989). Rule-governed behavior in behavior analysis: A theoretical and experimental history. In SC Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior. Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. (pp.97-117) New York: Plenum Press.
  • Weinstein JH, Wilson KG, Drake CE, & Kellum KK (2008). A relational frame theory contribution to social categorization. Behavior and Social Issues, 17, 40-65. Doi: 10.5210/bsi.v17i1.406.
  • Wulfert E & Hayes SC (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125-144. Doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-125
Data source: Dialnet