Effects of strategic versus tactical instructions on adaptation to changing contingencies in children with adhd

Function-Altering Effects of Rule Phrasing in the Modulation of Instructional Control

This study evaluated the effects of four instructional variants on instruction following under changing reinforcement schedules using an operant task based on Hackenberg and Joker's Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 367-383 (1994) experimental preparation. Sixteen college-aged adults served as participants and were randomly assigned to one of four instruction conditions (directive, generic, non-directive, and control). Results suggest textual verbal behavior modulated instruction following. Specifically, directive and generic instructions produced greater levels of instructional control and relatively lower levels of schedule control compared to non-directive instructions. Thus, participants in the directive and generic groups responded in accordance with the instructions even when schedules of reinforcement favored deviation from the instructed pattern. In contrast, participants in the non-directive group responded toward the optimal pattern. In the control condition, participant responding was variable but toward the optimal pattern. Findings are interpreted within the framework of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior and formulation of rule governance.

Effects of Mands on Instructional Control: A Laboratory Simulation

The effects of two types of mands on participants' adherence to instructions were examined across two groups using procedures based on Hackenberg and Joker (Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 62:367-383, 1994). Participants were presented with instructions describing a pattern of responding for producing points later exchanged for money and were exposed to choice trials in which a progressive-time (PT) and a fixed-time (FT) schedule were concurrently available. The instructions initially described how to optimize point production; however, the PT schedule was manipulated over the course of the experiment such that response patterns maximizing point production differed across conditions. All participants experienced the same experimental arrangement, and the two groups differed only in the form of the mand contained in the instructions presented to them. The instructions for the directive group contained the mand "you must…" (i.e., command) preceding the instructed response pattern, whereas the non-directive group instructions contained the mand "you might consider…" (i.e., suggestion) preceding the instructed response pattern. Results indicated that instruction type influenced response patterns across changing contingencies. The directive group exhibited greater adherence to the instruction than the non-directive group when instruction following was less profitable. Results are interpreted in terms of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior, and implications for practical application are discussed.

Effects of differential reinforcement and rules with feedback on preference for choice and verbal reports

We evaluated the effects of differential reinforcement and accurate verbal rules with feedback on the preference for choice and the verbal reports of 6 adults. Participants earned points on a probabilistic schedule by completing the terminal links of a concurrent-chains arrangement in a computer-based game of chance. In free-choice terminal links, participants selected 3 numbers from an 8-number array; in restricted-choice terminal links participants selected the order of 3 numbers preselected by a computer program. A pop-up box then informed the participants if the numbers they selected or ordered matched or did not match numbers generated by the computer but not displayed; matching in a trial resulted in one point earned. In baseline sessions, schedules of reinforcement were equal across free- and restricted-choice arrangements and a running tally of points earned was shown each trial. The effects of differentially reinforcing restricted-choice selections were evaluated using a reversal design. For 4 participants, the effects of providing a running tally of points won by arrangement and verbal rules regarding the schedule of reinforcement were also evaluated using a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline-across-participants design. Results varied across participants but generally demonstrated that (a) preference for choice corresponded more closely to verbal reports of the odds of winning than to reinforcement schedules, (b) rules and feedback were correlated with more accurate verbal reports, and (c) preference for choice corresponded more highly to the relative number of reinforcements obtained across free- and restricted-choice arrangements in a session than to the obtained probability of reinforcement or to verbal reports of the odds of winning.

Generating variable and random schedules of reinforcement using Microsoft Excel macros

Variable reinforcement schedules are used to arrange the availability of reinforcement following varying response ratios or intervals of time. Random reinforcement schedules are subtypes of variable reinforcement schedules that can be used to arrange the availability of reinforcement at a constant probability across number of responses or time. Generating schedule values for variable and random reinforcement schedules can be difficult. The present article describes the steps necessary to write macros in Microsoft Excel that will generate variable-ratio, variable-interval, variable-time, random-ratio, random-interval, and random-time reinforcement schedule values.

Effects of modeling versus instructions on sensitivity to reinforcement schedules

This study examined the effects of modeling versus instructions on the choices of 3 typically developing children and 3 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) whose academic responding showed insensitivity to reinforcement schedules. During baseline, students chose between successively presented pairs of mathematics problems associated with different variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. After responding proved insensitive to the schedules, sessions were preceded by either instructions or modeling, counterbalanced across students in a multiple baseline design across subjects. During the instruction condition, students were told how to distribute responding to earn the most reinforcers. During the modeling condition, students observed the experimenter performing the task while describing her distribution of responding to obtain the most reinforcers. Once responding approximated obtained reinforcement under either condition, the schedules of reinforcement were changed, and neither instruction nor modeling was provided. Both instruction and modeling interventions quickly produced patterns of response allocation that approximated obtained rates of reinforcement, but responding established with modeling was more sensitive to subsequent changes in the reinforcement schedules than responding established with instructions. Results were similar for students with and without ADHD.