Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Behavior Analyst logoLink to The Behavior Analyst
. 1987 Fall;10(2):183–187. doi: 10.1007/BF03392428

Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli

Elbert Blakely, Henry Schlinger
PMCID: PMC2742237  PMID: 22477976

Abstract

Behavior analysts have traditionally defined rules as discriminative stimuli. Three problems with this interpretation are discussed. First, because the effects of rules are often delayed, and the effects of discriminative stimuli are immediate, classifying rules as discriminative stimuli violates the definitional requirements of the latter. Second, when rules are defined as discriminative stimuli, other truly unique effects of rules may be obscured. Finally, both rules and contingencies develop new behavioral relations; however, when rules are interpreted as discriminative stimuli, their effects are not readily compared with those of contingencies. As an alternative, we suggest that rules be interpreted as function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. Implications of this function-altering interpretation for terminology and research strategy are discussed.

Keywords: rules, rule-governed behavior, contingency-specifying stimuli, discriminative stimuli, function-altering effects

Full text

PDF
183

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brownstein A. J., Shull R. L. A rule for the use of the term, "Rule-governed behavior". Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;8(2):265–267. doi: 10.1007/BF03393158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Devany J. M., Hayes S. C., Nelson R. O. Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 Nov;46(3):243–257. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.46-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Galizio M. Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Jan;31(1):53–70. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hayes S. C., Brownstein A. J., Zettle R. D., Rosenfarb I., Korn Z. Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 May;45(3):237–256. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Michael J. The discriminative stimulus or S(D). Behav Anal. 1980 Spring;3(1):47–49. doi: 10.1007/BF03392378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1986.45-351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  7. Schlinger H., Blakely E. Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. Behav Anal. 1987 Spring;10(1):41–45. doi: 10.1007/BF03392405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Shimoff E., Catania A. C., Matthews B. A. Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1981 Sep;36(2):207–220. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1981.36-207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Vaughan M. E. Repeated acquisition in the analysis of rule-governed behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 Sep;44(2):175–184. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.44-175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Behavior Analyst are provided here courtesy of Association for Behavior Analysis International

RESOURCES