PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2665430

A developmental analysis of rule-following.

Abstract

The development of rule-governed behavior begins when a class of verbal forms called instructions, in conjunction with other variables, systematically occasion functional consequences for compliance (or noncompliance). These instructional forms then function as specific stimulus controls for compliance, with the other variables potentially taking on conjoint or conditional stimulus control of that compliance. Experience with numerous instructions occasioning functional consequences for compliance can establish generalized compliance to an indefinitely large stimulus class of instructions, a stimulus class that readily and naturally includes those forms that describe relationships between events and response to them that we also call rules. The important conjoint variables may well be the instruction giver (rule stater), any of their other systematic characteristics that have occasioned functional consequences for compliance in the past, and the topography of the response requested. Generalization of compliance across people, settings, and topography can occur; this generalization can extend to self-instruction, and can fail to extend to certain topographies ("Thou shalt not kill"), certain rule staters (nonpeers who say "Don't use drugs" when peers say it is fun), and certain settings ("Don't play with John in class"). Finally, children's experiences with describing behavior can lead to new self-instructions that fit the already established discriminative-stimulus class of rules and instructions for compliance, so that the novel self-instruction produces compliance. Compliance-oriented research has demonstrated how instruction givers can establish instructions as a discriminative-stimulus class for compliance, and how generalized compliance to new instructions and new instruction givers can be accomplished. Correspondence-training research has demonstrated that self-instructions can become discriminative for later performance of the described behaviors. Self-instruction research suggests that these forms of instructions also can control subsequent behavior, and that instructions and rules may be produced covertly as well as overtly. What has yet to be demonstrated is an ability to produce a novel self-instruction that controls subsequent behavior. The argument has been that the development of a behavior class, compliance to instructions, could provide a reasonable explanation for the acquisition of rule-governed behavior. Experiences within the natural environment, as well as research on compliance, correspondence, and self-instruction, suggest that a behavior class, compliance to instructions, could provide a reasonable model of the acquisition and ge

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H C Riegler, D M Baer. 1989. A developmental analysis of rule-following.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2407(08)60287-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

G. H. Mead in the history of sociological ideas.

My aim is to discuss the history of the reception of George Herbert Mead's ideas in sociology. After discussing the methodological debate between presentism and historicism, I address the interpretations of those responsible for Mead's inclusion in the sociological canon: Herbert Blumer, Jürgen Habermas, and Hans Joas. In the concluding section, I assess these reconstructions of Mead's thought and suggest an alternative more consistent with my initial methodological remarks. In particular, I advocate a reconstruction of Mead's ideas that apprehends simultaneously its evolution over time and its thematic breadth. Such a historically minded reconstruction can be not only a useful corrective to possible anachronisms incurred by contemporary social theorists, but also a fruitful resource for their theory-building endeavors. Only then can meaningful and enriching dialogue with Mead begin.

Behaviorism↗

'Introspectionism' and the mythical origins of scientific psychology.

According to the majority of the textbooks, the history of modern, scientific psychology can be tidily encapsulated in the following three stages. Scientific psychology began with a commitment to the study of mind, but based on the method of introspection. Watson rejected introspectionism as both unreliable and effete, and redefined psychology, instead, as the science of behaviour. The cognitive revolution, in turn, replaced the mind as the subject of study, and rejected both behaviourism and a reliance on introspection. This paper argues that all three stages of this history are largely mythical. Introspectionism was never a dominant movement within modern psychology, and the method of introspection never went away. Furthermore, this version of psychology's history obscures some deep conceptual problems, not least surrounding the modern conception of "behaviour," that continues to make the scientific study of consciousness seem so weird.

Behaviorism↗