Newman B, Hemmes N S, Buffington D M, Andreopoulos S
Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, Flushing, NY, USA.
Anal Verbal Behav. 1995;12:31-41. doi: 10.1007/BF03392895.
The experiment reported here represents a partial replication of an experiment by Newman, Buffington, and Hemmes (in press) and analyzes responding in college students as a function of three different schedules of reinforcement (FR 1, FR 2, FR 3) and either verbal discriminative stimuli (instructions) or nonverbal discriminative stimuli (different colored cards). All consequences (tokens) were based on behavior consistent either with the verbal discriminative stimulus (S(D)) or with the nonverbal S(D). The schedule of reinforcement varied across subjects, and accuracy of the verbal and nonverbal S(D)s varied across phases from. Results showed that the behavior of all continuous reinforcement (FR 1) subjects was sensitive to the accuracy of the verbal S(D)s, but the behavior of subjects in the nonverbal S(D) conditions showed more sensitivity than the behavior of subjects in verbal conditions under intermittent schedules (FR 2 and FR 3). These finding suggest that the behavior of subjects in experiments where instructions are sometimes pitted against actual contingencies of reinforcement is a function not only of the instruction, but also of the type of reinforcement schedule used.
此处报告的实验是对纽曼、布芬顿和赫姆斯（即将发表）所做实验的部分重复，该实验分析了大学生在三种不同强化程序（固定比率1、固定比率2、固定比率3）以及言语辨别刺激（指令）或非言语辨别刺激（不同颜色的卡片）作用下的反应。所有结果（代币）均基于与言语辨别刺激（S(D)）或非言语S(D)一致的行为。强化程序因被试而异，言语和非言语S(D)的准确性在不同阶段也有所不同。结果表明，所有连续强化（固定比率1）被试的行为对言语S(D)的准确性敏感，但在间歇程序（固定比率2和固定比率3）下，非言语S(D)条件下被试的行为比言语条件下被试的行为表现出更高的敏感性。这些发现表明，在实验中，当指令有时与实际强化偶联相冲突时，被试的行为不仅取决于指令，还取决于所使用的强化程序类型。
