Search

Imposed postfeedback delays promote discrimination training; the present experiments determined whether they also improve performance in programmed instruction. In two experiments, college students completed 45 sets of Holland and Skinner's (1961) programmed text on behavior analysis in a computerized format in a three-component multiple schedule. In Experiment 1, the conditions were (a) no delay between questions, (b) a 10-s delay after each question (noncontingent delay), and (c) a 10-s delay after each question answered incorrectly (contingent delay). Noncontingent delay produced better performance than no delay and contingent delay. To determine whether performance increased in the noncontingent delay condition because subjects studied the material during delay periods, Experiment 2 tested three conditions: (a) no delay between questions, (b) a 10-s delay after each question (noncontingent delay), and (c) a 10-s delay after each question with the screen blank during the delay period. Noncontingent delay produced better performance than no delay, but there was no difference in performance between no delay and noncontingent delay with blank screen. Hence, noncontingent delay improved performance because students used delay periods to study. Furthermore, subjects preferred noncontingent delay to the other conditions, and session time increased only slightly.

In two experiments a multiple-response repertoire of four free-operant responses was developed with university students as subjects using monetary gain as reinforcement. Following baseline, one of the responses was reduced either by making monetary loss contingent upon it (response cost) or by removing it from the repertoire (response restriction). In Experiment 1 a multielement baseline design was employed in which baseline and restriction or response-cost contingencies alternated semirandomly every 3 minutes. In Experiment 2 a reversal design was employed (i.e., baseline, restriction or response cost, then baseline), and each response required a different amount of effort. Both experiments had the following results: (a) The target response decreased substantially; (b) most nontarget responses increased, and the rest remained near their baseline levels; and (c) no support was found for Dunham's hierarchical, most frequent follower, or greatest temporal similarity rules. For several subjects, the least probable responses during baseline increased most, and the most probable responses increased least. Furthermore, in Experiment 2, responses with the lowest frequency of reinforcement increased most (for all 7 subjects), and those with the greatest frequency of reinforcement increased least (for 5 subjects).