Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 83–104 | Cite as

Effects of A Masking Task on Schedule Discrimination and Extinction in Humans

  • Stephen R. Flora
  • William B. Pavlik
  • David J. Pittenger
Article

Abstract

Humans were exposed to a multiple fixed-interval 20- s/variable-ratio 15 schedule of lever pressing, with an anagram solution task, the “masking task, ” either concurrent with, or alternating with the operant task. In Experiment 1, subjects with the concurrent anagram task, the “masked” subjects, did not discriminate between the different components of the operant task. Subjects with the alternating anagram task, the “unmasked” subjects, did discriminate between the two components of the operant task. In Experiment 2, the operant response rates of the masked subjects did not decline during extinction of operant responding. the response rates of the unmasked subjects declined greatly during extinction. In Experiment 3, only masked subjects were run and both the operant task and the anagram task were put on extinction. Operant response rates and anagram response rates did not decline during extinction. Experiment 4 alternated masked and unmasked operant sessions in counterbalanced fashion across different subjects. Results replicated Experiments 1, 2, and 3, and some subjects developed discriminative responding during the unmasked sessions which was maintained during subsequent masked responding. The behavior of the subjects during the present experiments is likely to be controlled by: implicit task demands, explicit task demands (i.e., Instructions), attended-to reinforcement contingencies, and contingency-related subject-produced verbal rules.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ATWATER, J. B., & MORRIS, E. K. (1988). Teacher’s instructions and children’s compliance in preschool classrooms: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 157–167.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. BARON, A., & GALIZIO, M. (1983). Instructional control of human behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.Google Scholar
  3. BARON A., KAUFMAN, A., & STAUBER, K. A. (1969). Effects of instructions and reinforcement-feedback on human operant behavior maintained by fixedinterval reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 701–712.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. FRANCIS, W. N., & KUCERA, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  5. GALIZIO, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. HARZEM, P., LOWE, C. F., & BAGSHAW, M. (1978). Verbal control in human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 28, 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. HAYES, S. C., BROWNSTEIN, A. J., HAAS, J. R., & GREENWAY, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction; Distinguishing rulegoverned from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. HAYES, S. C., BROWNSTEIN, A. J., ZETTLE, R. D., ROSENFARB, I., & KORN, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. KNAPP, T J. (1987). Skinner’s analysis of perception/cognition. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), B. F. Skinner: Consensus and controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.Google Scholar
  10. LOWE, C. F. (1979). Determinants of human operant behavior. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzern (Eds.), Reinforcement and the organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. LOWE, C. F., HARZEM, P., & HUGHES, S. (1978). Determinants of operant behavior in humans: Some differences from animals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 30, 373–386.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. MAYZNER, M. S., & TRESSELT, M. E. (1958). Anagram solution times: A function of letter order and word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology 56, 376–379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. ORNE, M. T. (1962). on the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. PITTENGER, D. J., PAVLIK, W. B., FLORA, S. R., & KONTOS, J. M. (1988). Analysis of the partial reinforcement extinction effect in humans as a function of sequence of reinforcement schedule. American Journal of Psychology 101, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. POPPEN, R. (1982). Human fixed-interval performance with concurrent programmed schedules: A parametric analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 251–266.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. SCHOENFELD, W. N., & CUMMING, W. W. (1963). Behavior and perception. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 5). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. SHIFFRIN, R. M., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. SPENCE, K. W. (1966). Cognitive and drive factors in the extinction of the conditioned eye blink. Psychological Review, 73, 445–458.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. SPENCE, K. W., HOMZIE, M. J., & RUTLEDGE, E. F. (1964). Extinction of the human eyelid Cr as a function of the discriminability of the change from acquisition to extinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 376–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. SPENCE, K. W., & PLATT, J. R. (1967). Effects of partial reinforcement on acquisition and extinction of the conditioned eyeblink in a masking situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 259–263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. WEINER, H. (1983). Some thoughts on discrepant human-animal performances under schedules of reinforcement. The Psychological Record, 33, 521–532.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen R. Flora
    • 1
  • William B. Pavlik
    • 1
  • David J. Pittenger
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Marietta CollegeMariettaUSA

Personalised recommendations