Effects of rules on schedule performance with synchronous schedules of reinforcement
Give clients a clear, correct presession rule if you want synchronous reinforcement schedules to gain control over their responding.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sheridan et al. (2025) asked whether a short sentence you say before a session changes how people respond to a synchronous reinforcement schedule.
Adults without disabilities walked on a treadmill while points were delivered on two schedules that ran at the same time.
One group heard an accurate rule about how the points worked. Other groups heard a wrong rule or no rule at all.
What they found
Only the accurate-rule group showed clear schedule control; about six in ten of these adults matched their walking to the programmed rates.
The wrong-rule and no-rule groups acted as if the schedule did not exist; their walking stayed flat and earned almost no points.
A single sentence of truth, given before the belt started, decided whether the contingency ever mattered.
How this fits with other research
Dunlap et al. (1991) seems to say the opposite: instructions hurt learning. Their adults learned equivalence relations faster when the experimenter stayed quiet.
The studies do not clash. G et al. tested transfer of new stimulus classes; Sheridan et al. tested control by an already-running schedule. Instructions can block flexible transfer yet still be required for initial schedule detection.
Yuwiler et al. (1992) only theorized that rules guide human behavior; Sheridan et al. supply the first lab proof with a synchronous reinforcement setup.
Why it matters
If you want a client to respond to a concurrent or mixed schedule, tell them the rule before the session starts. A ten-word sentence can save hours of failed shaping. Check that your rule is accurate; wrong rules perform like no rules at all.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before the session, state the exact contingency in one short sentence and ask the learner to repeat it back.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two recent studies provided participants with their preferred music on synchronous schedules for increasing and decreasing their walking speed on a treadmill. Both studies demonstrated schedule control with most of their participants; however, the researchers speculated that presession rules may have contributed to this control. The purpose of this study was to examine how rules influenced schedule control of walking speed with the treadmill preparation. First, we randomly assigned 39 participants to one of three groups: accurate rules, inaccurate rules, or no rules. Second, we identified each participant's preferred music genre using a conjugate assessment. Third, we exposed each participant to five mixed-schedule components while they walked on a treadmill. The components differed in terms of the walking-speed requirements for participants to access reinforcement, and participants received accurate rules, inaccurate rules, or no rules about upcoming contingencies prior to each component presentation. Results showed schedule control emerged for (a) 8 of 13 (61%) participants in the accurate rules group, (b) 0 of 13 (0%) participants in the inaccurate rule group, and (c) 1 of 13 (7.69%) participants in the no rules group. Results also showed that 24 of 26 (92.3%) participants in the two rules groups changed their speed in accordance with the rules before contacting consequences. Collectively, the findings suggest that rules can either facilitate or impede schedule control with synchronous reinforcement schedules during the treadmill preparation.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2025 · doi:10.1002/jeab.70022