Abstract
Behavior analysis risks intellectual isolation unless it integrates its explanations with evolutionary theory. Rule-governed behavior is an example of a topic that requires an evolutionary perspective for a full understanding. A rule may be defined as a verbal discriminative stimulus produced by the behavior of a speaker under the stimulus control of a long-term contingency between the behavior and fitness. As a discriminative stimulus, the rule strengthens listener behavior that is reinforced in the short run by socially mediated contingencies, but which also enters into the long-term contingency that enhances the listener’s fitness. The long-term contingency constitutes the global context for the speaker’s giving the rule. When a rule is said to be “internalized,” the listener’s behavior has switched from short- to long-term control. The fitness-enhancing consequences of long-term contingencies are health, resources, relationships, or reproduction. This view ties rules both to evolutionary theory and to culture. Stating a rule is a cultural practice. The practice strengthens, with short-term reinforcement, behavior that usually enhances fitness in the long run. The practice evolves because of its effect on fitness. The standard definition of a rule as a verbal statement that points to a contingency fails to distinguish between a rule and a bargain (“If you’ll do X, then I’ll do Y”), which signifies only a single short-term contingency that provides mutual reinforcement for speaker and listener. In contrast, the giving and following of a rule (“Dress warmly; it’s cold outside”) can be understood only by reference also to a contingency providing long-term enhancement of the listener’s fitness or the fitness of the listener’s genes. Such a perspective may change the way both behavior analysts and evolutionary biologists think about rule-governed behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcock, J. (1993). Animal behavior (5th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1983). The effect of representations of binary variables on judgment of influence. Learning and Motivation, 14, 381–405.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and non-depressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441–485.
Baum, W. M. (1994a). John B. Watson and behavior analysis: Past, present, and future. In J. T. Todd & E. K. Morris (Eds.), Modern perspectives on John B. Watson and classical behaviorism (pp. 133–140). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Baum, W. M. (1994b). Understanding behaviorism: Science, behavior, and culture. New York: HarperCollins.
Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 183–187.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cerutti, D. T. (1989). Discrimination theory of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 259–276.
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene (new ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickinson, A., Shanks, D., & Evenden, J. (1984). Judgement of act-outcome contingency: The role of selective attribution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 29–50.
Glenn, S. S. (1988). Contingencies and meta-contingencies: Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 161–179.
Glenn, S. S. (1991). Contingencies and meta-contingencies: Relations among behavioral, cultural, and biological evolution. In P. A. Lamal (Ed.), Behavioral analysis of societies and cultural practices (pp. 39–73). New York: Hemisphere.
Harris, M. (1980). Cultural materialism. New York: Vintage Books.
Harris, M. (1987). Foodways: Historical overview and theoretical prolegomenon. In M. Harris & E. B. Ross (Eds.), Food and evolution (pp. 57–90). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Harris, M., & Ross, E. B. (1987). Death, sex, and fertility. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hayes, L. J., & Chase, P. N. (Eds.). (1991). Dialogues on verbal behavior. Reno, NV: Context.
Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1969). Method and theory in the study of avoidance. Psychological Review, 76, 49–69.
Hineline, P. N., & Wanchisen, B. A. (1989). Correlated hypothesizing and the distinction between contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 221–268). New York: Plenum.
Logue, A. W. (1978). Behaviorist John B. Watson and the continuity of the species. Behaviorism, 6, 71–79.
Logue, A. W. (1994). Watson’s behaviorist manifesto: Past positive and current negative consequences. In J. T. Todd & E. K. Morris (Eds.), Modern perspectives on John B. Watson and classical behaviorism (pp. 109–123). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Malagodi, E. F., & Jackson, K. (1989). Behavior analysts and cultural analysis: Troubles and issues. The Behavior Analyst, 12, 17–33.
Petrovich, S. B., & Gewirtz, J. L. (1991). Imprinting and attachment: Proximate and ultimate considerations. In J. L. Gewirtz & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 69–93). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reese, H. W. (1989). Rules and rule-governance: Cognitive and behavioristic views. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 3–84). New York: Plenum.
Segal, E. F. (1972). Induction and the provenance of operants. In R. M. Gilbert & J. R. Millenson (Eds.), Reinforcement: Behavioral analyses (pp. 1–34). New York: Academic Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). An operant analysis of problem solving. In Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis (pp. 133–171). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Skinner, B. F (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.
Sommerville, C. J. (1982). The rise and fall of childhood. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Staddon, J. E. R. (1977). Schedule-induced behavior. In W. K. Honig & J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior (pp. 125–152). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Staddon, J. E. R. (1983). Adaptive behavior and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Todd, J. T. (1994). What psychology has to say about John B. Watson: Classical behaviorism in psychology textbooks, 1920–1989. In J. T. Todd & E. K. Morris (Eds.), Modern perspectives on John B. Watson and classical behaviorism (pp. 75–107). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.
Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Re-introducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 585–654. (Includes commentary)
Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-governed behavior: A potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behavioral therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 73–118). New York: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is gratefully dedicated to my teacher, Richard J. Herrnstein. A version was presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis meeting in Atlanta, May 1994.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baum, W.M. Rules, Culture, and Fitness. BEHAV ANALYST 18, 1–21 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392688
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392688