History effects on induced and operant variability

Two experiments evaluated history effects on induced and operant variability. College students typed three-digit sequences on a computer keyboard. Sequence variability was induced (by no reinforcement or variation- independent reinforcement) or reinforced (by variation- or repetition-dependent reinforcement). Conditions with induced and operant variability were presented according to a reverse between-groups design. In Experiment 1, we examined transitions from the variation or repetition contingencies to no reinforcement, and vice versa. In Experiment 2, the variation or repetition contingencies were followed or preceded by variation-independent reinforcement. The results showed that (1) a history of no reinforcement impaired operant variability learning; (2) induced variability levels were higher and lower after a history of reinforcement for variation and repetition, respectively; (3) repetition was more easily disrupted by no reinforcement and independent reinforcement than was variation; and (4) response variability and stability were a function of past and current reinforcement conditions. These results indicate that reinforcement history influences both induced and operant variability levels.     

Varied but not necessarily random: Human performance under variability contingencies is affected by instructions

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the role of verbal stimuli in the production of response variability in humans. College students were distributed into three groups and asked to type three-digit sequences. Participants in the systematic group were instructed to produce sequences according to a rule of their choice; those in the random group were instructed to produce sequences according to chance; and those in the control group were not instructed about how to produce sequences. The experiment employed an ABA design. During the A phases, low-frequent sequences were reinforced (variability contingency), whereas during the B phase, reinforcement was withdrawn (extinction). The results indicated the following: (1) The instructions were efficient at producing systematic and random-like patterns for the systematic and random groups, respectively; in the absence of instructions, a mix of both patterns was observed. (2) Behavior was sensitive to extinction independently of the instructions provided. (3) Systematic patterns favored a more equiprobable distribution of sequences across trials. (4) Reaction times were longer for responding in a systematic than in a random-like fashion. The present findings suggest that individual differences in meeting variability contingencies may be due, at least partially, to instructional control.