A reply to behavior analysts writing about rules and rule-governed behavior

Area of Science:

• Behavioral Psychology
• Verbal Behavior Analysis
• Cognitive Science

Background:

• Traditional behavior analysis often treats verbal stimuli like "rules" or "instructions" as simple discriminative stimuli.
• Recent arguments challenge this classification, suggesting a need for a more nuanced understanding of verbal stimuli.
• The current interpretation may limit the comprehensive analysis of how language influences behavior.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose a more functional and accurate way to conceptualize verbal stimuli in behavior analysis.
• To advocate for the use of "contingency-specifying stimuli" as a more fruitful framework.
• To refine the terminology used for verbal stimuli, particularly the term "rule."

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of existing literature on verbal stimuli and their function in behavior.
• Theoretical argument for reclassifying verbal stimuli based on their behavioral function.
• Distinction between discriminative and function-altering properties of verbal stimuli.

Main Results:

• Verbal stimuli, termed "rules" or "instructions," are frequently misinterpreted as solely discriminative stimuli.
• "Contingency-specifying stimuli" are identified as a more accurate classification due to their function-altering properties.
• The current practice of labeling all verbal stimuli as "rules" may be overly simplistic and functionally inaccurate.

Conclusions:

• Behavior analysts should shift focus from viewing all verbal stimuli as discriminative.
• Adopting the concept of "contingency-specifying stimuli" provides a more functionally precise framework.
• The term "rule" should be reserved for verbal stimuli that specifically alter behavioral contingencies.