Hiroto Okouchi

Study objective: Effects of naming training and comparison-as-node training on the establishment of stimulus equivalence were examined. Design: Group comparison and within-subject comparison designs were used. Participants: 13 undergraduates participated. Intervention: In Phase 1, all participants experienced matching-to-sample training under the linear-series training structure, followed by a test examining whether three 5-member equivalent classes had been established. In Phase 2, the participants experienced the same matching-to-sample training and equivalent class test as Phase 1, but with different stimulus sets. Prior to this, participants were given naming training, comparison-as-node training, or no additional training. Measures: Percentage of correct responses and response latency. Results: No participant established stimulus equivalence in Phase 1. In Phase 2, participants who had received naming training or comparison-as-node training established stimulus equivalence, whereas participants without such additional training did not. Conclusion: Prior training on comparison-as-node, as well as on naming, contributed to the establishment of stimulus equivalence.

Study objective: The present study examined effects of a remote history of a DRL schedule on interresponse times (IRTs) under a VI schedule with human subjects. Design: Double-history, single-history, and no history conditions were compared across subjects. Setting: The experiment was conducted individually in a room. Subjects: Two male and eleven female undergraduates with no experience of reinforcement experiments, 19 to 22 years old, participated. Procedure: In the doublehistory condition, DRL 1-s with LH 1-s, DRL 5-s with LH 5-s, and VI 5-s schedules were in effect in that order. The single-history subjects were exposed only to the last two schedules, whereas the no-history subjects experienced only the VI 5-s schedule. Results: For all subjects in the double-history condition, IRTs longer than 1s and equal to or shorter than 2s, which had been reinforced differentially under the DRL 1-s with LH 1-s, emitted more frequently during the last five VI 5-s sessions than during the first five. Such a systematic difference was not observed in the single-history and no-history conditions. Conclusion: These results suggest that a schedule history affected remotely on the VI responding, and that the IRT was a useful measure for examining the remote history effects.

This analogue study examined the effectiveness of a social-standard setting on self-instructional control for cold-pressor pain. Twelve male undergraduates were served as participants. Self-instructions were effective on the increase in the tolerance time to iced water compared to baseline. When participants thought experimenter knew their instructions, the tolerance time to iced water was longer than that when participants thought no one knew their instructions. Any self-instructional control was not observed on subjective measures (pain perception and unpleasantness). These results suggest that the effect of social-standard setting on self-instructional control for pain was partially replicated. Some future research directions were discussed.

Study objectives: The purpose of the present study was to analyze everyday behavior, specifically, whether the interval between train arrivals would influence passengers' behavior of arriving at the platform. Design: The pattern of the number of people arriving at a platform during the interval between trains was compared at 3 stations where the intervals between train arrivals differed. Settings: The study was conducted at 3 stations in the Kansai district (western Japan) at which only local train stopped. Participants: All passengers boarding trains on the selected platforms during the observation period were participants. Independent variable: The number of trains arriving at a station per hour (2, 6, or 12) was the Independent variable. Results: The longer the interval between trains, the more people tended to arrive at the platform just before the train came. Conclusion: The present results suggest that the arrival of trains functions like a reinforcer, so that the interval between trains functions like a reinforcement schedule.

The present article reviews studies on the experimental analysis of rule-governed behavior. The main results are as follows: (1) Although instructions are effective in establishing an efficient occurrence of responses, sensitivity to changes in the contingencies is reduced when instructions are used. (2) Contingencies that contact the instructions eliminate instruction-following responses. (3) A history of correspondence between instruc tions and reinforcement schedules promotes instruction-following responses. (4) Without certain programmed contingencies, self-rules correlate with nonverbal responses. (5) Nonverbal responses generally covariate with self-rules. When reinforcement schedules for nonverbal responses are strong and contradict the contingencies for verbal responses, however, the nonverbal responses do not co-vary with the self-rules. (6) When a chain of a self-rule and a nonverbal response was reinforced, the self-rule and nonverbal responses were correlated. Some future directions for research on rule-governed behavior were discussed from the viewpoint of social contingencies.

Study objective: The purpose of this study was to establish self-instructional control by differential reinforcement of novel chains of self-instruction and nonverbal behavior. Design: 3 conditions were compared: a verbal-nonverbal noncorrespondence history condition, a verbal-nonverbal correspondence history condition, and a no-history condition. Setting: An experimental room. Participants: Undergraduates (8 males, 15 females; 18-27 years old) with no prior experience with experiments on reinforcement schedules. Procedure: 5 participants in Experiment 1, and 4 in Experiment 2, all of whom were in the verbal-nonverbal noncorrespondence history condition, were exposed to an FR schedule when they had chosen an instruction to respond slowly, and a DRL schedule when they had chosen an instruction to respond rapidly. Following this, an FI schedule was in effect regardless of the instruction chosen. Results: For these 9 participants, response rates during the FI schedule were higher when the instruction to respond slowly had been chosen than when the instruction to respond rapidly had been chosen. Such control by self-instruction was not observed for participants who did not have a history of differential reinforcement of verbal-nonverbal noncorrespondence in this setting. Conclusion: The results suggest that self-instructional control can be classified as a response chain.