Verbal self-reports of delayed matching to sample by humans.
Asking clients to self-score after each trial can slow them down and bias their answers, especially when time is tight.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults played a computer matching game with a twist. After each round they had to answer, "Did you earn points?"
The team changed two things: how fast people had to answer and whether they saw right-or-wrong feedback.
What they found
When the clock ticked fast, people’s yes/no reports got worse. Without feedback, they started guessing based on how fast they had clicked.
Simply asking the extra question also slowed their game play and hurt their scores.
How this fits with other research
Reed (2012) tested kids with and without autism on the same delayed-matching game. Longer delays made all kids pick only one part of the picture, a flaw called over-selectivity.
Fixsen et al. (1972) ran a token home for delinquent boys. Points for accurate reports sharpened their self- and peer-reports, yet the reports alone did not change room-cleaning behavior.
Bradshaw et al. (2011) showed that interviewer praise for wrong answers warped children’s testimony. Together these papers warn that any contingency—time pressure, missing feedback, or social praise—can twist verbal reports.
Why it matters
If you add a quick check-in like "Did you win your token?" you may accidentally punish speed and invite guesses. Try asking after the session, not after every trial, and always show the right answer right away.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Move the self-check question to the end of the block and keep immediate feedback on.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Undergraduates participated in two experiments to develop methods for the experimental analysis of self-reports about behavior. The target behavior was the choice response in a delayed-matching-to-sample task in which monetary reinforcement was contingent upon both speed and accuracy of the choice. In Experiment 1, the temporal portion of the contingency was manipulated within each session, and the presence and absence of feedback about reinforcement was manipulated across sessions. As the time limits became stricter, target response speeds increased, but accuracy and reinforcement rates decreased. When feedback was withheld, further reductions in speed and reinforcement occurred, but only at the strictest time limit. Thus, the procedures were successful in producing systematic variation in the speed, accuracy, and reinforcement of the target behavior. Experiment 2 was designed to assess the influence of these characteristics on self-reports. In self-report conditions, each target response was followed by a computer-generated query: "Did you earn points?" The subject reported by pressing "Yes" or "No" buttons, with the sole consequence of advancing the session. In some cases, feedback about reinforcement of the target response followed the reports; in other cases it was withheld. Self-reports were less accurate when the target responses occurred under greater time pressure. When feedback was withheld, the speed of the target response influenced reports, in that the probability of a "Yes" report increased directly with the speed of accurate target responses. In addition, imposing the self-report procedure disrupted target performance by reducing response speeds at the strictest time limit. These results allow investigation of issues in both behavioral and cognitive psychology. More important, the overall order in the data suggests promise for the experimental analysis of self-reports by human subjects.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1990 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.53-321