Effects of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior.
Rigid rule-following makes people blind to environmental changes, while response variation keeps them flexible and adaptive.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers asked college students to press buttons in different patterns. Some students got strict rules about what to do. Others got rules that let them vary their responses.
The team then changed the reinforcement rules without warning. They wanted to see who would notice the change and adjust their behavior.
What they found
Students who followed rigid rules almost never noticed when the rules changed. Their behavior stayed the same even when it stopped working.
Students who varied their responses caught the change most of the time. They quickly switched to new patterns that earned reinforcement.
How this fits with other research
Ribeiro et al. (2022) extends this finding. They showed that requiring high variability (Lag-10) helps students learn difficult sequences faster than low variability requirements.
Hopkinson et al. (2003) applies the same principle to depression. When they reinforced variability in depressed students, their repetitive behavior normalized quickly.
Nergaard et al. (2020) offers an apparent contradiction. Their review argues variability isn't directly reinforced - it emerges from extinction processes. But this doesn't contradict Charlop et al. (1990). The 1990 study shows variability makes people sensitive to contingencies, not that variability itself gets reinforced.
Why it matters
When clients seem stuck in rigid routines, check if they're following overly strict rules. Try building in response variation during teaching. Use lag schedules or multiple-exemplar training. This helps learners notice when contingencies change and adapt their behavior. The skill matters for everything from social interactions to job training.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add response variation requirements to your teaching sessions - use Lag-3 schedules or require 3 different ways to complete the same task
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two experiments examined the relation between response variability and sensitivity to changes in reinforcement contingencies. In Experiment 1, two groups of college students were provided complete instructions regarding a button-pressing task; the instructions stated "press the button 40 times for each point" (exchangeable for money). Two additional groups received incomplete instructions that omitted the pattern of responding required for reinforcement under the same schedule. Sensitivity was tested in one completely instructed and one incompletely instructed group after responding had met a stability criterion, and for the remaining two groups after a short exposure to the original schedule. The three groups of subjects whose responding was completely instructed or who had met the stability criterion showed little variability at the moment of change in the reinforcement schedule. The responding of these three groups also was insensitive to the contingency change. Incompletely instructed short-exposure responding was more variable at the moment of schedule change and was sensitive to the new contingency in four of six cases. In Experiment 2, completely and incompletely instructed responding first met a stability criterion. This was followed by a test that showed no sensitivity to a contingency change. A strategic instruction was then presented that stated variable responding would work best. Five of 6 subjects showed increased variability after this instruction, and all 6 showed sensitivity to contingency change. The findings are discussed from a selectionist perspective that describes response acquisition as a process of variation, selection, and maintenance. From this perspective, sensitivity to contingency changes is described as a function of variables that produce response variability.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1990 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-251