Toward a Procedure to Study Rule-Governed Choice: Preliminary Data
Rules win only when a cue points to the richer payoff; otherwise clients follow the better schedule, not the words.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Méndez (2024) built a lab game for college students. Two rules sat on the screen. Each rule pointed to a different pile of points.
A small picture showed which rule was "on." Students picked left or right to follow the rule or skip it.
The team then removed the rules. Same piles of points, no words. They wanted to see if people still chased the richer pile.
What they found
When the picture matched the rule tied to the bigger payoff, students followed that rule almost every time.
Take the words away and choice flipped. People simply went for the side that paid more, rule or no rule.
Bottom line: stimulus plus richer schedule, not the rule itself, controlled choice.
How this fits with other research
Udhnani et al. (2025) ran the next version. They kept the payoff trick and added "rule accuracy." Their adults still chased the richer schedule, proving the effect is real and repeatable.
Matson et al. (2004) saw fourth-graders pick accuracy pay for easy math but time pay for hard math. Same theme: people choose the schedule that gives them the better deal.
Bailey et al. (1990) showed rats also shift toward the safer lever when overall food grows. Species differ, but the matching law holds: allocation follows the better reinforcement rate.
Why it matters
Your client may quote a rule yet do the opposite. Check which schedule is actually paying off. Put a clear cue on the richer schedule and deliver strong reinforcement there. Without that, your "rule" is just noise.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pair each instruction with a distinct cue and make sure that pathway delivers the highest rate of reinforcement.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to model a situation that induced choice between following two incompatible rules, each associated with a different rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, eight undergraduate students were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule (training). In each component, there was a concurrent variable interval (VI)–extinction (EXT) schedule. Participants were given two rules that instructed them to respond to the VI alternative in the presence of different discriminative stimuli. The side of the VI schedule changed in each component and offered a different reinforcer rate according to the discriminative stimuli in the operation. When both discriminative stimuli were concurrently presented (test), participants favored the alternative previously instructed by the rule, which was associated with the greatest reinforcer rate, whereas indifference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Experiment 2 tested the effects of reinforcement rate using the same procedure without providing rules. During training, participants gradually developed a preference for the VI alternatives. In the choice test phase, participants favored the alternative associated with the stimuli with the highest reinforcer rate when both discriminative stimuli were present. Unsystematic preference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Two alternative explanations were provided for the findings.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2024 · doi:10.1007/s40616-024-00206-6