Effects of self-generated rules on the development of schedule-controlled behavior.
Self-made rules speed skill acquisition yet make the behavior harder to undo later.
01Research in Context
What this study did
College students sat at a computer. They could press a key to earn points on different schedules.
Some students wrote their own rule about when to press. Others got a rule from the computer. A third group got no rule at all.
What they found
The self-rule group learned the schedule faster than the no-rule group.
Later, when points stopped, the self-rule group kept pressing longer. Their behavior was harder to extinguish.
How this fits with other research
Weisberg et al. (1966) showed that even babies press and then stop when reinforcement ends. The new study says rules can make adults persist longer.
Lydersen et al. (1974) found that pigeons also keep responding during extinction under certain cues. The human rules act like those cues.
Rutter et al. (1987) showed that asking for feedback helps adults with ID keep working. Self-rules help neurotypical adults learn faster, but both studies point to self-management tools shaping schedule control.
Why it matters
If you let learners write their own plan, they master the skill quicker. Be ready for that plan to stick when you fade reinforcement. Probe early and thin slowly to avoid rigid persistence.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After the learner states a rule, write it on an index card and review it before each session, then plan extra extinction trials when you fade reinforcement.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
College students responded under a multiple differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate 5-s fixed-ratio 8 schedule, with components alternating every 2 min. After 40 programmed minutes of acquisition and 12 min of maintenance, without notice, both schedules changed to extinction for 28 min. During acquisition, between alternations of the multiple schedule, some subjects were asked to develop rules describing the schedule contingencies. Other subjects were given these same rules between alternations, and a third group neither received nor were asked to develop rules. By the end of the acquisition phase, self-generated-rule subjects were more likely to show schedule-typical behavior than were subjects not asked to generate rules. The behavior of those given rules was similar to those asked to generate rules at the end of acquisition, but yoked-rule subjects acquired schedule-typical behavior at a quicker rate. By the end of extinction, during the period corresponding to the previous fixed-ratio interval, all no-rule subjects who had earned points during acquisition and maintenance were responding at a rate of less than 30 responses per minute. Only 3 of the 9 self-generated-rule subjects and 2 of the 5 yoked-rule subjects were similarly responding at this low rate. Results suggest that asking subjects to develop self-rules facilitates acquisition, but can retard extinction. Results also suggest that self-generated rules function similarly to external rules.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-107