Temporal contiguity is positively associated with ease of detecting contingencies. When actions and outcomes are not contiguous, intervening responses might be strengthened by adventitious reinforcement. In the current study, participants engaged in a task where pressing 1 of 10 keys was reinforced either immediately or after various delays. Outcomes were scheduled either according to an FR 1 or FR 2 schedule. Participants also answered a question designed to assess their illusion of control. As the latency between the instrumental response and the reinforcer increased, participants attributed less importance to the instrumental response, attributed more importance to other nonessential responses, and began to show stereotyped patterns of responding. The illusion of control was positively related to the intricacy of such patterns. Results are discussed in terms of a contiguity which implies causality heuristic and the relationship of superstition with adventitious reinforcement and illusion of control.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaronA.GalizioM. (1983) Instructional control and human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.
2.
BenassiV. A.SweenyP. D.DrevnoG. E. (1979) Mind over matter: Perceived success at psychokinesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1377–1386.
3.
BrownR.HerrnsteinR. J. (1975) Psychology. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
4.
CataniaA. C.CuttsD. (1963) Experimental control of superstitious responding in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 203–208.
5.
GriceG. R. (1948) The relation of secondary reinforcement to delayed reward in visual discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 1–16.
6.
HallJ. F. (1976) Classical conditioning and instrumental learning: A contemporary approach. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
7.
HayesS. C.BrownsteinA. J.HaasJ. R.GreenwayD. E. (1986a) Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–147.
8.
HayesS. C.BrownsteinA. J.ZettleR. D.RosenfarbI.KornZ. (1986b) Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256.
9.
HeltzerR. A.VyseS. A. (1994) Intermittent consequences and problem solving: The experimental control of “superstitious” beliefs. The Psychological Record, 44, 155–169.
10.
LangerE. J. (1975) The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.
11.
LashleyK. S. (1924) Studies of the cerebral function in learning: V. The retention of motor habits after destruction of the so-called motor areas in primates. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 12, 249–276.
12.
MatuteH. (1994) Learned helplessness and superstitious behavior as opposite effects of uncontrollable reinforcement in humans. Learning and Motivation, 25, 216–232.
13.
MatuteH. (1995) Human reactions to uncontrollable outcomes: Further evidence for superstitions rather than helplessness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 142–157.
14.
MazurJ. E. (1998) Learning and behavior. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
MuenzingerK. F. (1928) Plasticity and mechanization of the problem box habit in guinea pigs. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 8, 45–69.
16.
NinnessH. A.NinnessS. K. (1998) Superstitious math performance: Interactions between rules and scheduled contingencies. The Psychological Record, 48, 45–62.
17.
OnoK. (1987) Superstitious behavior in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 47, 261–271.
18.
OnoK. (1994) Verbal control of superstitious behavior: Superstitions as false rules. In HayesS. C.HayesL. J.SatoM.OnoK. (Eds.), Behavior analysis of language and cognition. Reno, NV: Context Press. Pp. 181–196.
19.
RichardsR. W. (1981) A comparison of signaled and unsignaled delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 145–152.
20.
RudskiJ. M.LischnerM. I.AlbertL. M. (1999) Superstitious rule generation is affected by probability and type of outcome. The Psychological Record, 49, 245–260.
21.
ShanksD. R. (1993) Human instrumental learning: A critical review of data and theory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 319.
22.
ShanksD. R.PearsonS. M.DickinsonA. (1989) Temporal contiguity and the judgment of causality by human subjects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 139–159.
23.
ShimoffA. E.CataniaA. C.MatthewsB. A. (1981) Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207–220.
24.
SkinnerB. E. (1948) Superstition in the pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168–172.
25.
StaddonJ. E. R.SimmelhagV. L. (1971) The “superstition” experiment: A reexamination of its implications for the principles of adaptive behavior. Psychological Review, 78, 3–43.
26.
ThomasG. V. (1981) Contiguity, reinforcement rate, and the law of effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33B, 33–43.
27.
ThorndikeE. L. (1927) The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 212–222.
28.
VyseS. A. (1991) Behavioral variability and rule generation: General, restricted, and superstitious contingency statements. The Psychological Record, 41, 487–506.
29.
VyseS. A. (1997) Believing in magic. New York: Oxford Univer. Press.
30.
WagnerM. W.MorrisE. K. (1987) “Superstitious” behavior in children. The Psychological Record, 37,471–488.
31.
WassermanE. A. (1990) Detecting response-outcome relations: Towards an understanding of the causal texture of the environmental. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 26. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 27–82.
32.
WassermanE. A.NeunaberD. J. (1986) College students' responding to and rating of contingency relations: The role of temporal contiguity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 15–35.
33.
WeilJ. L. (1984) The effect of delayed reinforcement on free-operant responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 143–155.
34.
WilliamsB. A. (1976) The effects of unsignaled delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 441–449.
