Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40124232›Full record

ArticleThe Analysis of verbal behavior2024

Toward a Procedure to Study Rule-Governed Choice: Preliminary Data.

David Ruiz Méndez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David Ruiz MéndezLaboratorio de Análisis de la Conducta, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, de los Barrios Ave. Number 1, Los Reyes Ixtacala, Tlalnepantla, , Estado de México C.P. 54090 México.ORCID 0000-0003-2089-4809

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to model a situation that induced choice between following two incompatible rules, each associated with a different rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, eight undergraduate students were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule (training). In each component, there was a concurrent variable interval (VI)-extinction (EXT) schedule. Participants were given two rules that instructed them to respond to the VI alternative in the presence of different discriminative stimuli. The side of the VI schedule changed in each component and offered a different reinforcer rate according to the discriminative stimuli in the operation. When both discriminative stimuli were concurrently presented (test), participants favored the alternative previously instructed by the rule, which was associated with the greatest reinforcer rate, whereas indifference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Experiment 2 tested the effects of reinforcement rate using the same procedure without providing rules. During training, participants gradually developed a preference for the VI alternatives. In the choice test phase, participants favored the alternative associated with the stimuli with the highest reinforcer rate when both discriminative stimuli were present. Unsystematic preference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Two alternative explanations were provided for the findings.

Indexed as

ChoiceHumansRate of reinforcementRule-followingRules

Identifiers

PMID40124232
PMCPMC11925829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.