Effects of reinforcement and response‐cost history on instructional control
A short stretch of rewards for compliance can make adults stick to rules even when the rules later stop paying.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Nergaard et al. (2021) asked adults without disabilities to follow computer instructions. Some instructions were wrong and cost them money.
First the adults earned points for doing what the screen said. Later they lost points for disobeying. Finally both rewards and penalties stopped.
What they found
People who first got rewards for obeying kept following wrong rules even after the pay stopped. The reward history glued them to the instructions.
Point-loss also helped, but only while it was still active. Once penalties ended, its power faded fast.
How this fits with other research
Robertson et al. (2013) ran a simpler version of the same task. They saw the same stickiness of wrong rules under response-cost, but never added an early reward-only phase. Nergaard extends that work by showing reward history is the glue.
Lord et al. (1986) first showed verbal rules alone can lock adults into poor choices. Nergaard adds a layer: a short reward history makes that lock even tighter.
Green et al. (1986) found one brief reinforcement phase kept lever pressing high for six months. Nergaard mirrors this in the social domain—just a few rewarded compliances kept adults rule-bound long after pay ended.
Why it matters
When you set up a token board or point system, remember you are building history. If you reward every followed instruction at first, clients may keep obeying even when later tasks are flawed or no longer pay off. Plan your thinning and fade-out carefully so rule-following stays flexible, not rigid.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After learners master a rule, quickly thin and vary the payoff so they learn to check if the rule still works.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The present study compared the effects of reinforcement or punishment versus no additional consequences for instruction following on instructional control and subsequent rule-governed insensitivity. In two experiments, adult participants were presented with repeated choices between a short progressive-time schedule and either a fixed time-schedule or a longer progressive-time schedule. In Experiment 1, three groups were given an initially accurate instruction relative to the direct contingency. A control group experienced no additional consequences for compliance with instructions, whereas compliance resulted in additional points for a second group, and noncompliance led to the subtraction of points for a third group. In a subsequent phase, instructions became inaccurate and there were no additional consequences for compliance or noncompliance for any group. Consistent with previous results, rule-governed insensitivity was observed in all participants. Experiment 2 employed the same procedure, except instructions were inaccurate throughout all sessions, and compliance in the subsequent phase resulted in diminishing points per session. Reinforcement for following instructions increased instructional control and subsequent rule-governed insensitivity. This increase was maintained even after the termination of additional consequences, a result that supports theoretical suggestions that a history of reinforcement for complying with instructions and rules is an important factor in rule-governed insensitivity.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2021 · doi:10.1002/jeab.680