The Study of Rule-Governed Behavior and Derived Stimulus Relations: Bridging the Gap

There is no such thing as a bad boy: The Circumstances View of problem behavior

“…Early research suggested it produced an insensitivity to direct contingencies (Shimoff et al, 1981). More recent research suggests that it does not produce actual insensitivity but rather, as a function of derived stimulus relations, it can significantly heighten sensitivity to verbal stimuli at the expense of stimuli imbedded in direct contingencies (Harte et al, 2020). The upshot is that verbal stimuli exert extraordinary influence on human behavior.…”

Exploring a Training IRAP as a single participant context for analyzing reversed derived relations and persistent rule‐following

“…As mentioned in the introduction, until relatively recently, the study of derived relational responding had been conducted more or less in isolation from the study of rule‐governed behavior. On balance, the two areas had been linked conceptually by the main progenitors of research on derived relations (see Sidman, 1994), and RFT more generally (Hayes & Hayes, 1989; see also Harte, Barnes‐Holmes, Barnes‐Holmes, & Kissi, 2020, for a detailed review of this area). Recent attempts to bridge the gap between these two research areas have involved training and testing a simple relational network and inserting a derived element of that network into a rule for responding on a contingency‐switching MTS task.…”

“…For example, if a participant was told that the best way to earn points on a fixed‐interval (FI) schedule was to keep pressing as quickly as possible, the rule or instruction could generate relatively high levels of responding even though reinforcers were available for responding at a very low rate (e.g., Weiner, 1964, 1969). While recognizing the clear utility of the concept of rules and rule‐governed behavior, and the experimental support for that concept, it has also been recognized that there is a certain lack of technical precision in the concept itself (Harte, Barnes‐Holmes, Barnes‐Holmes, & Kissi, 2020). For example, the claim that rules or instructions specify contingencies seemingly requires a functional‐analytic account of specification itself.…”

Murray Sidman's contributions to clinical behavior analysis

“…Some of these examples might be explained by appeal to rule governance (e.g., Baron & Galizio, 1983; Galizio, 1979; Hayes, 1993; Skinner, 1966), and it has been asserted that excessive or inappropriate rule governance plays an important role in the development and treatment of clinical disorders (e.g., Hayes & Gifford, 1997; Hayes et al, 1999; Hayes et al, 1989; but see Harte et al, 2020, for a critical review of the literature investigating the relationship between rule governance, derived stimulus relations, and clinical disorders). However, although evoking rule governance, whether rules are defined as contingency specifying stimuli (Skinner, 1966) or function‐altering‐contingency‐specifying stimuli (Schlinger & Blakely, 1987), may describe the functions of rules, it does not explain how rules or verbal stimuli more generally come to acquire their functions.…”

“…However, although evoking rule governance, whether rules are defined as contingency specifying stimuli (Skinner, 1966) or function‐altering‐contingency‐specifying stimuli (Schlinger & Blakely, 1987), may describe the functions of rules, it does not explain how rules or verbal stimuli more generally come to acquire their functions. In particular, what is missing is a functional account of what it means for rules to specify contingencies (Harte et al, 2020; Hayes, 1993; Hayes et al, 2001). Moreover, asserting rule‐governance as an explanation would not account for the common observation that simply reporting sad or fearful events often elicits sadness and fear.…”