The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 33–39 | Cite as

Rule-following and human operant responding: Conceptual and methodological considerations

  • Robert D. Zettle
  • Mark J. Young
Article

Abstract

A conceptual analysis of rule-governed behavior, emphasizing pliance and tracking as functional classes of rule-following, is provided and related to previous methodological strategies in human operant research. A novel strategy, which utilizes a microcomputer to reinforce correspondences between subject guesses and responding, is proposed for the study of rule-following. Results from a preliminary demonstration of the procedures are reported briefly, and possible applications to the further analysis of rule-following are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.Google Scholar
  2. Bentall, R. P., Lowe, C. F., & Beasty, A. (1985). The role of verbal behavior in human learning: II. Developmental differences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 165–181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Harzem, P., Lowe, C. F., & Bagshaw, M. (1978). Verbal control in human operant behavior. Psychological Record, 28, 405–423.Google Scholar
  6. Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (in press). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D.; Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237–256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayes, S. C., Rosenfarb, I., Wulfert, E., Munt, E. D., Korn, Z., & Zettle, R. D. (1985). Self-reinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 201–214.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayes, S. C., & Wolf, M. R. (1984). Cues, consequences, and therapeutic talk: Effects of social context and coping statements on pain. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 22, 385–392.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lowe, C. F. (1979). Determinants of human operant behaviour. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Advances in analysis of behavior: Vol. 1. Reinforcement and the organization of behaviour (pp. 159–192). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Lowe, C. F. (1983). Radical behaviorism and human psychology. In G. C. L. Davey (Eds.), Animal models of human behavior: Conceptual, evolutionary, and neurological perspectives (pp. 71–93). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Lowe, C. F., Beasty, A., & Bentall, R. P. (1983). The role of verbal behavior in human learning: Infant performance on fixed-interval schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39, 157–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Matthews, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. (1968). Developing correspondence between the non-verbal and verbal behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 267–281.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogers-Warren, A., & Baer, D. M. (1976). Correspondence between saying and doing: Teaching children to share and praise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 335–354.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenfarb, I., & Hayes, S. C. (1984). Social standard setting: The Achilles heel of informational accounts of therapeutic change. Behavior Therapy, 15, 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shimoff, E. (1986). Postsession verbal reports and the experimental analysis of behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4, 19–22.Google Scholar
  19. Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Responsivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207–220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Skinner. B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  23. Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-governed behavior: A potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behavioral research and therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 73–118). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1983). Effects of social context on the impact of coping self-statements. Psychological Reports, 52, 391–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert D. Zettle
    • 1
  • Mark J. Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentWichita State UniversityWichitaUSA

Personalised recommendations