Rules, rule-governed behavior, and organizational change in a large metropolitan research university.

Abstract

We examine the use of rules to influence organizational change in a large metropolitan research university. The macrobehaviors of interest involved student success metrics (such as on-time graduation) that are part of the performance metrics favored by the university system's selecting environments, such as the Florida State University System's Board of Governors, federal funding programs, and national philanthropic organizations. Five dimensions of a recently revised taxonomy of rules and rule-governed behavior (Pelaez, 2013) are used to analyze rules that have been introduced to effect the desired behavioral change in students. The context is Florida International University (Miami), and the change effort is its national award-winning Graduation Success Initiative (GSI; 2011-2015. The interrelated GSI interventions are large and complex. Therefore, isolating and evaluating each individual intervention has not been possible. However, the GSI's cumulative effect appears to have been to help to increase on-time graduation by 16 points in 4 years. The manipulation of rules specifying contingencies seems to have played an important role in that success and is the subject of this discussion.

Brazilian Presidential Pronouncements in the Pandemic: Effectiveness in Crisis Communication and Rule Properties

“…Although the aforementioned dimensions are relevant in order to follow a rule, there are still other factors that may affect its effectiveness. Robertson and Pelaez ( 2018 ) argued that the probability that listeners (e.g., members of a society) will behave according to rules given by authorities (e.g., governmental agency) depends on three factors: (a) the type/dimensions of the given rule, (b) the context in which the rule is given (e.g., in the context of the pandemic that the country is facing), and (c) the history of the listener with that rule or similar rules. Our work focused on the discussion of the first factor.…”

“…Regarding the dimensions of rules analyzed in the president’s official statements, we mostly found implicit and inaccurate rules, categories that are indicated as having little effect on the listener’s behavior (Pelaez, 2013 ; Robertson & Pelaez, 2018 ). We suggest that official statements of the president in the context of the pandemic must contain rules that are explicit, accurate, from low to high complexity, and given by others (e.g., authorities in the field) and that specify the immediate contingencies.…”

Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice in Colleges and Universities: An Internal Researcher/Practitioner Model

“…Discussions of rule-governed behavior map directly onto discussions of policy-influenced behavior. Rule-governed behavior appears extensively in the behavioral science literature (e.g., Barnes-Holmes et al, 2001; Catania, 1985; Dixon & Hayes, 1998; Hineline & Wanchisen, 1989; Pelaez, 2013; Robertson & Pelaez, 2016, 2018). This article extends a 12-year line of research on intentional systemic change in large, public, metropolitan, research universities (e.g., Robertson, 2019, 2020, 2022; Robertson & Pelaez, 2016, 2018; Robertson et al, 2021).…”

Rule-Governed Behavior and Climate Change: Why Climate Warnings Fail to Motivate Sufficient Action

“…Compared to simpler rules, rule control by complex rules requires more advanced listener skills and as a result, complex rules may be less likely to produce effective listener behavior. To illustrate, compare the rules, “To reduce carbon emissions, people should reduce air travel” to the rule, “Flying produces greater carbon emissions than riding a bus, taking a train, and driving except when the car has only a single passenger in which case flying may produce lower emissions per person, depending on whether or not the plane is flown near capacity.” The second is more complex than the first because it involves a greater number of stimulus relations, including a higher-order class of relations, where relations are conditional upon other relations (see Robertson & Pelaez, 2018 ). From a relational frame perspective, it might be said that the former rule involves fewer derived relational operants.…”

“…The specificity of a rule may influence rule following. (Pelaez, 2013 ; Robertson & Pelaez, 2018 ). Explicit or complete rules specify all parts of a reinforcement contingency (antecedent, behavior, and consequence), whereas implicit rules fail to include some part.…”