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

Zettle, Robert D.; Young, Mark

doi:10.1007/bf03392818

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Four studies stated that their research goal was to examine the effects of pliance (i.e., Berry et al, 1992, along with three studies reported in Donadeli & Strapasson, 2015). One study reported that it intended to investigate whether empirical evidence existed for the concept of tracking (i.e., Zettle & Young, 1987). Two studies were identified that stated that their primary focus was to examine formative augmenting (i.e., two studies in Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Pliance, Tracking, and Augmenting

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within relational frame theory, a distinction has been made between three types of rule-governed behavior known as pliance, tracking, and augmenting. This review examined whether there is support for the concepts of pliance, tracking, and augmenting in the experimental analysis of behavior; whether these concepts refer to distinct functional classes of behavior; and how these concepts have been operationalized in experimental (behavioral-analytic) research. Given that the concepts of pliance, tracking, and augmenting were first defined by Zettle and Hayes, we confined our review to studies published in or after 1982. Our results indicate that (a) experimental research investigating pliance, tracking, and/or augmenting is extremely limited; (b) it is difficult to determine the extent to which the concepts of pliance, tracking, and augmenting allow for relatively precise experimental analyses of distinct functional classes of behavior; and (c) pliance and tracking have been operationalized by using a limited set of procedures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Pliance, Tracking, and Augmenting

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding has stimulated several areas of research evaluating variables and methodological manipulations that affect the relative degree of rule following. Research indicates rule-governed behavior may be modulated by several variables, including completeness of the rules (e.g., Podlesnik & Chase, 2006), feedback on the performance of a task (Baron et al, 1969), the function-altering phrasing of the rules (e.g., Schlinger & Blakely, 1987;Zettle & Young, 1987), changes in the contingencies and accuracy of the rules (e.g., Baumann, Abreu-Rodrigues, & da Silva Souza, 2009;Fox & Pietras, 2013;Hackenberg & Joker, 1994), and the degree of discrepancy between stated rules or instructions 1 and actual reinforcement contingencies (e.g., DeGrandpre & Buskist, 1991;Galizio, 1979). For example, results from Galizio suggest that responding in an avoidance paradigm will follow the instruction when the instruction is accurate; however, responding may deviate when instructions are inaccurate and individuals contact the actual contingency in the form of the loss of points.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Function-Altering Effects of Rule Phrasing in the Modulation of Instructional Control

Henley

Hirst

Reed

et al. 2016

Analysis Verbal Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effects of four instructional variants on instruction following under changing reinforcement schedules using an operant task based on Hackenberg and Joker's Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 367-383 (1994) experimental preparation. Sixteen college-aged adults served as participants and were randomly assigned to one of four instruction conditions (directive, generic, non-directive, and control). Results suggest textual verbal behavior modulated instruction following. Specifically, directive and generic instructions produced greater levels of instructional control and relatively lower levels of schedule control compared to nondirective instructions. Thus, participants in the directive and generic groups responded in accordance with the instructions even when schedules of reinforcement favored deviation from the instructed pattern. In contrast, participants in the non-directive group responded toward the optimal pattern. In the control condition, participant responding was variable but toward the optimal pattern. Findings are interpreted within the framework of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior and formulation of rule governance. Keywords Rule-governed behavior. Instructional control. Schedule control. Progressive-time schedules. Fixed-time schedules. Verbal behavior. Adult humans Skinner defined rules as discriminative stimuli that specify a contingency (1966, 1969). Skinner's formulation of rule-governed behavior offers a behavioral account of

show abstract

“…First, the importance of using a procedure that minimizes social control as much as possible has been highlighted by different authors (Critchfield, Tucker, & Vuchinich, 1998;Gomez & Luciano, 2000;Zettle & Young, 1987) and is supported by data indicating that social contingencies have a real impact on the performances of subjects and on verbal statements (Barrett, Deitz, Gaydos, & Quinn , 1987;Williams, 1985). The use of a PIN for subjects, hiding the tape recorder and cables, and subjects working alone on the task, were some of the measures taken for that purpose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%