PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Acta Colombiana de Psicología complies with international intellectual property and copyright laws, and particularly with Article No. 58 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, Law No. 23 of 1982, and the Agreement No. 172 of September 30, 2010 (Universidad Católica de Colombia Intellectual Property Regulation).
Authors retain their copyright and grant to the Acta Colombiana de Psicología the right of first publication, with the work registered under Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use the published material, provided they credit the authorship of the work and the first publication in this Journal.
Abstract
There is enough data in the literature to support an argument showing functional differences between instructions and rules. In an attempt to distinguish these elements, this paper presents the argument that even though instructions and rules are descriptions of particular contingencies, they differ in: a) the moment in which the subject describes the contingency, b) the description’s source, and c) their function in behavior acquisition and maintenance. It can be assumed that any situation, both experimental and non-experimental, is made up of three components: 1) stimulus situation (SS), 2) subject’s response (R), and 3) response’s consequences (C). The description made about each component often possesses four qualities: a) presence, b) relevance, c) specificity, and d) pertinence. These qualities are inclusive and the registered values are the opposite sides of each one (i.e. presence-absence, relevant-irrelevant, generic-specific, pertinent-non pertinent). Should rules and instructions considered to be descriptions of a contingencial array, it would be necessary to have a taxonomy that allows analysis and qualification under similar assessment criteria. Any description can be classified into six identifiable categories; four of them, result from a combination of quality values (i.e. specificity and pertinence), the fifth is based on the mention of irrelevant elements, and the sixth is based on the non-mention of any of the elements: 1) Specific and pertinent (SP), 2) Specific and NonPertinent (SNP), 3) Generic and Pertinent (GP), 4 Generic and Non-pertinent (GNP), 5) Irrelevant (I), and 6) Absent (A). This proposal can constitute a useful tool for the study and analysis of contingencial descriptions (i.e. instructions and rules).
Keywords:
References
Andronis, P. (1991). Rule governance: Enough to make a term mean. En: L.J. Hayes y P.N. Chase (Eds.). Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp.226-235). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Baron, A. y Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495-520.
Blakely, E. y Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 183-187.
Catania, A.C., Shimoff, E. y Matthews, B.A. (1989). An experimental analysis of rule-governed behavior. En: S.C. Hayes (Ed.). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. (pp. 119-150). New York: Plenum.
Chase, P.N. y Danforth, J.S. (1991). The role of rules in concept learning. En: L.J. Hayes y P.N. Chase (Eds.). Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp.205-222). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Critchfi eld, T.S., Tucker, J.A. y Vuchinich, R.E. (1998). Selfreport methods. En: K.A. Lattal y M. Perone (Eds.). Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 435-470). New York: Plenum.
Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53-70.
Goldiamond, I. (1966). Perception, language, and conceptualization rules. En: B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.). Problem solving: Research, method and theory. (pp.183-224). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Guerrero-Radillo, A. y Ortiz, G. (2007). El papel de la retroalimentación y la ausencia o presencia de instrucciones en la elaboración de descripciones en tareas de discriminación condicional. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 10, 1, 5-13.
Harzem, P., Lowe, C.F. y Bagshaw, M. (1978). Verbal control in human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 28, 405-423.
Hayes, S.C. (1986). The case of the silent dog- Verbal reports and the analysis of rules: A review of Ericsson and Simon’s protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 351-363.
Hayes, S.C. (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S.C., Brownstein, A.J., Zettle, R.D., Rosenfarb, I. y Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237-256.
MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of Skinner´s Verbal Behavior, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 83-99.
Martínez, H., González, A., Ortiz, G. y Carrillo, K. (1998). Aplicación de un modelo de covariación al análisis de las ejecuciones de sujetos humanos en condiciones de entrenamiento y de transferencia en una tarea de discriminación condicional. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 30, 2, 233- 60.
Martínez, H., Ortiz, G. y González, A. (2002). Precisión instruccional, retroalimentación y eficacia: Efectos sobre el entrenamiento y transferencia en una tarea de discriminación condicional en adultos. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 8,7-33.
Michael, J. (1986). Repertoire-altering effects of remote contingencies. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4, 10-18.
Ortiz, G., González, A., Rosas, M. y Alcaráz, F. (2006). Efectos de la precisión instruccional y la densidad de retroalimentación sobre el seguimiento instruccional, la elaboración y transmisión de descripciones en tareas de discriminación condicional. Acta Comportamentalia, 14, 2, 103-130.
Ortiz, G., Pacheco, V., Bañuelos, I. y Jáuregui, L. (2007). Efecto del contacto con instrucciones, la especificidad e historia instruccional en la insensibilidad al cambio contingencial en tareas de igualación de la muestra de primer orden en humanos. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 10, 2, 107-115.
Peláez, M. y Moreno, R. (1998). A taxonomy of rules and their correspondence to Rule-Governed behavior. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 24, 197-214.
Peñaloza, E., Hickman, H., Moreno, D., Cepeda, M. y Ribes, E. (1988). Efectos del entrenamiento diferencial y no diferencial en una tarea de discriminación condicional en niños. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 14, 61-84.
Oah, S. y Dickinson, A.M. (1989). A review of empirical studies of verbal behavior. The Análisis of Verbal Behavior, 7, 53-68.
Ribes, E. (2000). Instructions, rules, and abstraction: A misconstrued relation. Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 41-55.
Ribes, E., Dominguez, M., Tena, O. y Martínez, H. (1992). Efecto diferencial de la relación de textos descriptivos de contingencias entre estímulos antes y después de la respuesta de igualación en una tarea de discriminación condicional. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la conducta, 21, 31-60.
Ribes, E. y Martínez, H. (1990). Interaction of contingencies and rule instructions in the performance of human subjects in conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 40, 565-586.
Rosenfarb, I.S., Newland, M.C., Brannon, S.E. y Howey, D.S. (1992). Effects of self-generated rules on the development of scheduled-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 1, 107-121.
Skinner, B.F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 291-294.
Skinner, B.F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. En: B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.). Problem solving: Research, method and theory. (pp. 225-257). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Trigo, E. y Martínez, H. (1994). Diseño y procedimientos de validación en la psicología interconductual: discriminación condicional y estrategias longitudinales. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta,20, 67-82.
Trigo, E. Martínez, R. y Moreno, R. (1995). Rule performance and generalization in a matching-to-sample task. The Psychological Record, 45, 2, 223-240.
Varela, J. y Quintana, C. (1995). Comportamiento inteligente y su transferencia. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 20, 47-66.
Vaughan, M. (1989). Rule-governed behavior in behavior análisis. En: S.C. Hayes (Ed.). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 97-118). New York: Plenum.
