Contingency spaces and measures in classical and instrumental conditioning.

Périkel et al. (1974) built a new map of reinforcement. They plotted every possible mix of response and reward. The map is called a contingency space.

The authors re-examined two famous ideas: the Matching Law and Probability Matching. They showed both are special cases where response and reward have zero contingency.

The Matching Law is not a unique rule. It is simply the point on the map where rewards do not depend on the response.

When rewards are truly response-dependent, behavior moves away from that zero point. The map shows exactly how far.

Matthews et al. (1987) took the same map and applied it to children’s promises. They asked: does a child’s verbal promise predict later action? The 1987 paper extends the 1974 math from animal keys to human words.

Wilson et al. (1987) pushed back. They said the map is too fancy. Just count whether the child’s words and actions match. This looks like a contradiction, but it is about level of detail, not truth. The 1974 map still works; the 1987 commentary just prefers a simpler score.

Iwata et al. (1990) and Moxley (1989) ran preschool experiments. They showed that say-do correspondence only appears when reinforcement is arranged. The data fill in the map with real points, supporting the 1974 claim that contingency, not talk, controls behavior.

When a client says, “I will do it,” do not assume the words will rule the future. Check the contingency. If the promised action produces nothing extra, the words are just noise. Add or remove reinforcers and watch the data point move on the map. That is how you turn the 1974 paper into a Monday-morning intervention.