Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 125–139 | Cite as

Rule-Governed Behavior: Teaching a Preliminary Repertoire of Rule-Following to Children With Autism

  • Jonathan TarboxEmail author
  • Carrie K. Zuckerman
  • Michele R. Bishop
  • Melissa L. Olive
  • Denis P. O’Hora
Article

Abstract

Rule-governed behavior is generally considered an integral component of complex verbal repertoires but has rarely been the subject of empirical research. In particular, little or no previous research has attempted to establish rule-governed behavior in individuals who do not already display the repertoire. This study consists of two experiments that evaluated multiple exemplar training procedures for teaching a simple component skill, which may be necessary for developing a repertoire of rule-governed behavior. In both experiments, children with autism were taught to respond to simple rules that specified antecedents and the behaviors that should occur in their presence. In the first study, participants were taught to respond to rules containing “if/then” statements, where the antecedent was specified before the behavior. The second experiment was a replication and extension of the first. It involved a variation on the manner in which rules were presented. Both experiments eventually demonstrated generalization to novel rules for all participants; however variations to the standard procedure were required for several participants. Results suggest that rule-following can be analyzed and taught as generalized operant behavior and implications for future research are discussed.

Key words

rule-governed behavior rule-following instructional control conditionality autism relational frame theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes-Holmes, D., O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Hayes, S. C., Bisset, R. T., & Liddy, F. (2001). Understanding and verbal regulation. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition (pp. 103–118). New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. (2001). Exemplar training and a derived transformation of function in accordance with symmetry: II. The Psychological Record, 51, 589–604.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., B Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  4. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiorile, C. A., & Greer, R. D. (2007). The induction of naming in children with no prior tact responses as a function of multiple exemplar histories of instruction. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 23, 71–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Greer, R. D., Stolfi, L., Chavez-Brown, M., & Rivera-Valdez, C. (2005). The emergence of the listener to speaker component of naming in children as a function of multiple exemplar instruction. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21, 123–134.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayes, L. J. (1991). Substitution and reference. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior: The First International Institute on Verbal Relations (pp. 3–14). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayes, S. C., Blackledge, J. T., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Language and cognition: Constructing an alternative approach within the behavioral tradition. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21–50). New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Home, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. LeBlanc, L. A., Miguel, C. F., Cummings, A. R., Goldsmith, T. R, & Carr, J. E. (2003). The effects of three stimulus-equivalence testing conditions on emergent US geography relations of children diagnosed with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mathews, B. A., Catania, A. C., & Shimoff, E. (1985). Effects of uninstructed verbal behavior on nonverbal responding: Contingency descriptions versus performance descriptions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. (2004). Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding. The Psychological Record, 54, 437–460.Google Scholar
  16. Parrott, L. J. (1984). Listening and understanding. Behavior Analyst, 7, 29–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Mathews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207–220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Shimoff, E., Mathews, B. A., & Catania, A. C. (1986). Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 149–157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group and the B. F. Skinner Foundation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  21. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  22. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Tarbox, J., Tarbox, R. S., & O’Hora, D. (2009). Nonrelational and relational instructional control. In R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities (pp. 111–127). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Tarbox
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carrie K. Zuckerman
    • 1
  • Michele R. Bishop
    • 1
  • Melissa L. Olive
    • 1
  • Denis P. O’Hora
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Autism and Related DisordersTarzanaUSA
  2. 2.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations