In a recent paper, we suggested that an agreed

account of the referential properties of rules and

instructions has yet to be developed (O’Hora &

Barnes-Holmes, 2001). In order to address this

fundamental issue, procedures are required that

establish referential or 'specifying' properties in

previously neutral stimuli. The present report

summarizes the rationale for this research and

outlines procedures that we are currently

developing

Barnes-Holmes, Dermot

O'Hora, Denis

Roche, Bryan

English

MURAL - Maynooth University Research Archive Library

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR BULLETIN 2001 19, 13-15RESEARCH IN PROGRESSDEVELOPING A PROCEDURE TO MODEL THE ESTABLISHMENT OFINSTRUCTIONAL CONTROLDenis O’Hora, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, and Bryan RocheNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, MAYNOOTHIn a recent paper, we suggested that an agreedaccount of the referential properties of rules andinstructions has yet to be developed (O’Hora &Barnes-Holmes, 2001).  In order to address thisfundamental issue, procedures are required thatestablish referential or ‘specifying’ properties inpreviously neutral stimuli.  The present reportsummarizes the rationale for this research andoutlines procedures that we are currentlydeveloping.Skinner (1969) distinguished between rulegoverned behavior and contingency-shapedbehavior.  Skinner suggested that contingency-shaped behavior is acquired through directexposure to environmental consequences, whereasrule governed behavior is controlled by “rulesderived from the contingencies in the form ofinjunctions or descriptions which specify occasions,responses and consequences” (Skinner,1969 p 160;emphasis added).  Although other researchershave suggested revisions of Skinner’s approach torules and rule following (Chase & Danforth, 1991;Hayes & Hayes, 1989; Schlinger, 1993; Zettle &Hayes, 1982), Skinner’s definition of a rule as acontingency specifying stimulus remains the mostinfluential within behavior analysis.The empirical literature on instructionalcontrol stemmed largely from Skinner’s (1969)definition of a rule.  Recently, however,researchers have argued that the term ‘rule’should be avoided because it has been used torefer both to antecedents of behavior and tooutcomes of behavior (O’Hora & Barnes-Holmes,2001; Ribes-Inesta, 2000).  In the current report,therefore, we will use the term ‘instruction’ torefer to verbal antecedents of the type used in theempirical literature on rule governance andinstructional control.Over ten years ago, Hayes and Hayes (1989)argued that the conception of instructions ascontingency specifying stimuli has one majorweakness.  Specifically, these authors contendedthat Skinner did not provide a functional-analyticdefinition of the term ‘specify’.  As a result, a widevariety of stimuli have been utilized in theempirical investigation of instructional control,including: “Press 3 and you will lose 17 points”(Schmitt, 1990), “You must choose one of the threebottom figures that is the most different withrespect to the top one” (Martinez-Sanchez &Ribes-Inesta, 1996 p.308), “Go fast” (Hayes,Brownstein, Zettle, Rosenfarb, & Korn, 1986), andthe presentation of a small dot that signaled acorrect response (Danforth, Chase, Dolan, & Joyce,1990, p. 100).In each of the foregoing examples, and inmany others, one might say that an instructionspecifies a contingency.  Nevertheless, whenpressed to explain how a stimulus comes tospecify a contingency, difficulties arise.  Forexample, if a stimulus that specifies a contingencyis simply considered a discriminative stimulus, theterm ‘specify’ becomes redundant, and so too, onemight argue, does the concept of an instruction.The abandonment of the terms ‘instruction’ and‘specify’ may indeed be considered an attractiveoption on the grounds of parsimony (cf. Vargas,1988), but if instructions are to be defined simplyas discriminative stimuli, a further problem arises.Specifically, an instruction may controlresponding in the absence of an explicit history ofreinforcement for following that instruction, andthis fact is difficult to reconcile with theestablished definition of a discriminative stimulus(see Schlinger, 1993 for a detailed discussion).Rather than abandon the concepts of instructionand ‘specifying’, therefore, we suggest that a clearand precise definition of the term ‘specify’ isrequired.Recent research in the area of derivedstimulus relations has suggested one approach toa functional analysis of the term ‘specify’, and toinstructional control more generally (Chase &Danforth, 1991; Hayes & Hayes, 1989; Hayes,Gifford, & Hayes, 1998).  More specifically,Relational Frame Theory (RFT) suggests anapproach to instructional control in terms of thederived relations involved.  As an example, Hayesand Hayes (1989) conceptualized a simpleinstruction in terms of Before and After relationsand relations of co-ordination or sameness.  Theinstruction “When the bell rings, then go to theoven and get the cake” can be conceptualized interms of the participation of the words inequivalence relations with actual events (e.g., theword “bell” with actual bells, the word “oven”with actual ovens), and the contextual control ofrelational cues for Before and After relations (i.e.,EAHB Bulletin Vol. 1914“when”, “then”, “and” establish the sequence; bellBEFORE oven BEFORE cake, or by mutualentailment; cake AFTER oven AFTER bell).  Werecognize that this interpretation may not capturethe intricate subtleties of instructional control inthe natural environment and, in its current form,may be somewhat simplistic.  Nevertheless, itconstitutes the first step towards the analysis ofinstructional control as a form of derivedrelational responding.  Moreover, RFT provides aclear functional-analytic definition of the term‘specify’.The RFT approach to instructional controllends itself readily to experimental investigation.As mentioned earlier, a simple instruction fromthe perspective of RFT may involve responding inaccordance with the derived relations of Same,Different, Before, and After.  In the experimentalwork we are currently conducting, the first stageinvolves establishing the functions of Same,Different, Before and After for four abstractstimuli (e.g., !!! as Same, %%%  as Different, etc.)using a complex computer-based pre-trainingprocedure1 (broadly similar to the relationalpretraining reported by Steele and Hayes, 1991).Participants are then exposed to a test forinstructional control over sequencing behavior.Figure 1 illustrates a representative test probe.Each test probe consisted of a visual presentationincluding nonsense syllables, colored squares andthe contextual cues established in pre-training (i.e.,!!!, %%%, etc., represented in the boxed area ofFigure 1 by the uppercase words SAME andBEFORE).  Specifically, this probe may bedescribed as follows: C1 Before C2 Before C3Before C4, where C1 is the same as B1, and B1 isthe same as A1 (green); C2 is the same as B2, andB2 is the same as A2 (red); C3 is the same as B3,and B3 is the same as A3 (yellow); and C4 is thesame as B4, and B4 is the same as A4 (blue).Participants are then required to enter a four-keyresponse using four colored keys on the computerkeyboard based on the network of Before andSame relations. The correct sequence response inthis case is GreenàRedàYellowàBlue, (shownbelow the boxed area in Figure 1).  A number ofparticipants have been exposed to this and avariety of related tasks that also involvedpresenting Different and After contextual cues.Thus far, the predicted response patterns haveemerged for 8 out of 14 participants across twoexperiments.                                                     1 The reader can download the Psyscope (Cohen,MacWhinney, Flatt, & Provost, 1993) application used inthe current work at the Maynooth web-site:http://www.may.ie/academic/psychology/software.htm or see Roche, Stewart, and Barnes-Holmes (1999)SAMEA1B1SAMEA2B2SAMEA3B3SAMEA4B4SAMEB1C1SAMEB2C2SAMEB3C3SAMEB4C4C4C3BEFOREC2BEFOREC1BEFOREKey: A1 A3A2 A4Green SquareRed SquareYellow SquareBlue SquareCorrect Response:    Green  -  Red  -  Yellow  -  BlueFigure 1From an RFT perspective, the predictedperformances constitute a basic model ofinstructional control in that response sequencesare specified by derived Same or Different relationsbetween A and C stimuli, and Before or Afterrelations among C stimuli.  In the context of theanalysis of complex human behavior, the currentresearch is critical.  In order to provide afunctional-analytic approach to the specification ofcontingencies by instructions, the term ‘specify’must be defined functionally and demonstratedusing previously neutral stimuli in a laboratorysetting.  The current research represents the firsttentative steps towards that goal.The procedures outlined herein werepresented in more detail at the annual conferenceof the EABG (UK) group in London, April, 2001.The authors welcome suggestions, comments, andquestions (denis.p.ohora@may.ie, dermot.barnes-holmes@may.ie, bryan.t.roche@may.ie).REFERENCESChase, P. N., & Danforth, J. S. (1991).  The role ofrules in concept learning.  In L. J. Hayes and P.N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior(pp. 205-222).  Reno NV: Context Press.Cohen, J. D., Mac Whinney, B., Flatt, M., &Provost, J.  (1993).  PsyScope: A new graphicinteractive environment for designingpsychology experiments.  Behavioral ResearchMethods, Instruments and Computers, 25(2), 257-271.EAHB Bulletin Vol. 1915Danforth, J. S., Chase, P. N., Dolan, M., & Joyce, J.H. (1990).  The establishment of stimuluscontrol by instructions and by differentialreinforcement. Journal of The ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 54, 97-112.Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D.,Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986).  Rulegoverned behavior and sensitivity to changingconsequences of responding. Journal of TheExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237-256.Hayes S. C., Gifford, E. C., & Hayes, G. J. (1998).Moral behavior and the development of verbalregulation.  Journal of The Experimental Analysisof Behavior, 21, 253-279.Hayes, S.  C., & Hayes, L.  J.  (1989).  The verbalaction of the listener as a basis for rulegovernance.  In S. C. Hayes (Ed.),  Rulegoverned behavior: Cognition, contingencies, andinstructional control  (pp.  153-190).  New York:Plenum Press.Martinez-Sanchez, H., & Ribes-Inesta, E. (1996).Interactions of contingencies and instructionalhistory on conditional discrimination.  ThePsychological Record, 46, 301-318.O’Hora, D., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Thereferential nature of rules and instructions: Aresponse to Instructions, rules, andabstraction: A misconstrued relation by EmilioRibes-Inesta. Behavior and Philosophy, 29, 21-25.Ribes-Inesta, E. (2000).  Instructions, rules andabstraction: A misconstrued relation.  Behaviorand Philosophy, 28, 41-55.Roche, B., Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (1999).PsyScope: An easy-to-use graphic-orientedapplication for designing and controllingcomputer-based research on relationalresponding.  Experimental Analysis of HumanBehavior Bulletin, 17, 5-7.Schlinger, H. D. (1993).  Separating discriminativeand function-altering effects of verbal stimuli.The Behavior Analyst, 16, 9-23.Schmitt, D. R. (1998).  Effects of consequence ofadvice on patterns of rule control and rulechoice.  Journal of The Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 70, 1-21.Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement:A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C.  (1991).  Stimulusequivalence and arbitrarily applicablerelational responding.  Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519-555.Vargas, E. A. (1988).  Verbally governed and eventgoverned behavior.  The Analysis of VerbalBehavior, 6, 11-22.Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982).  Rule governedbehavior: A potential theoretical frameworkfor cognitive-behavior therapy.  In P. C.Kendall (Ed.), Advances in Cognitive-BehavioralResearch and Therapy  (Vol. 1; pp. 73-118).  NewYork: Academic.

Developing a Procedure to Model the Establishment of Instructional Control

http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/10677/1/BR-Developing-2001.pdf

Developing a Procedure to Model the Establishment of Instructional Control

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

MURAL - Maynooth University Research Archive Library