Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 57–63 | Cite as

Protocol Analysis and the “Silent Dog” Method of Analyzing the Impact of Self-Generated Rules

  • Steven C. Hayes
  • Douglas White
  • Richard T. Bissett
Article

Abstract

Within the cognitive literature, verbal protocols of cognitive events are plagued by difficult questions of unconsciousness, completeness, reactivity, and validity. In this paper we argue that these concerns apply with much less force or not at all when protocol analysis is used to determine whether a given instance of behavior is governed by self-generated rules. When adequate controls are used, some patterns of results allow this question to be answered unambiguously and in a manner untouched by the philosophical hurdles encountered within the cognitive literature on protocol analysis. We argue that in at least some circumstances a slightly modified version of protocol analysis allows us to know, in a functional sense, what a person was thinking. Protocol analysis can be very useful to behavior analysts who are interested in determining whether task-relevant behavior is controlled by self-generated rules or is purely contingency shaped.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1964). Reinforcement and instructions with mental patients. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Crutcher, R. J. (1994). Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doyle, A. C. (1892). The memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. Reprinted in Sherlock Holmes: Complete novels and stories (Vol 1., pp. 455–477). New York: Bantam Books, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hayes, S. C. (1986). The case of the silent dog: Verbal reports and the analysis of rules. A review of K. Anders Ericsson and Herbert A. Simon’s Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 351–363.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  8. Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137–147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaufman, A., Baron, A., & Kopp, R. E. (1966). Some effects of instructions on human operant behavior. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1, 243–250.Google Scholar
  10. Nisbett, E. R., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Payne, J. W. (1994). Thinking aloud: Insights into information processing. Psychological Science, 5, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Reese, H. W. (1991). Mentalistic approaches to verbal behavior. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 151–177). Reno, NV: Context Press.Google Scholar
  13. Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17, 759–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, 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
  15. Short, E. J., Evans, S. W., Friebert, S. E., & Schatschneider, C. W. (1991). Thinking aloud during problem solving: Facilitation effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 3, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  19. Trabasso, T., & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through on-line inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Watson, J. B. (1920). Is thinking merely the action of language mechanisms? British Journal of Psychology, 11, 87–104.Google Scholar
  21. Wilson, T. D. (1994). The proper protocol: Validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychological Science, 5, 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wulfert, E., Dougher, M. J., & Greenway, D. E. (1991). Protocol analysis of the correspondence of verbal behavior and equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 489–504.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., & Dougher, M. J. (1994). Third-order equivalence classes. The Psychological Record, 44, 411–439.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven C. Hayes
    • 1
  • Douglas White
    • 1
  • Richard T. Bissett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations