RULE-GOVERNED BEHAVIORS – DO EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL VARIABLES DEFINE THEM?
The main goal of this research was to examine the effects of external variables (type of instruction, change in context, order of stimulus exposure) and internal variable (conformity) on rule-governed behavior and on reaction time in an experimental task. Three types of instructions were used in this research: those that contain a reward, positive punishment, or negative punishment. The experiment was designed in a way that, in the first phase, the rule was functional (led to points achievement), while in the second phase without announcing the change of context, the rule became dysfunctional, The results showed that change in the context, content of the instruction, and the conformity level may increase or reduce the probability of rule following. Changing the context in which the rule is no longer functional, increased significantly the likelihood of leaving the rule. The reward information within the instruction also increased the likelihood of leaving the dysfunctional rule. A more pronounced conformity, on the other hand, reduced the probability of leaving the rule. Furthermore, the results showed that there were significant double interactions of variables in the prediction of rule following. The highest logistic regression coefficients were obtained for the context and type of instruction interaction while the logistic regression coefficients were lower for the interaction of conformity and the type of instruction, as well as the context and conformity interaction. The triple interactions between internal and external variables in the prediction of rule following were also statistically significant. External variables had an effect on the reaction time, while the internal variable did not. Changes in the context, as well as the information about positive punishment, led to prolonging the reaction time, while order of stimulus exposure led to its shortening.
Baruch, D. E., Kanter J. W., Busch, A. M., Richardson, J. V., & Holmes, B. D. (2007). The differential effect of instructions on dysphoric and nondysphoric persons. The Psychological Record, 57, 543−554. doi:0.1007/BF03395594
Baum, W. M. (2005). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Bentin, S., & McCarthy, G. (1994). The effects of immediate stimulus repetition on reaction time and event-related potentials in tasks of different complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 130−149. doi:10.1037/0278-7318.104.22.168
Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233−248. doi:10.1901/jeab.1982.38-233
Čekrlija, Đ., Đurić, D., Mirković, B. i Marjanović, J. (2015). Validacija upitnika K-10 kao kratke mjere autoritarne submisivnosti. U G. Latinović (Ur.), Zbornik radova: Banjalučki novembarski susreti - Stanje i perspektive istraživanja u humanističkim i društvenim naukama (str. 567−586). Banja Luka: Filozofski fakultet.
Čekrlija, Đ., Rožić, V. i Turjačanin, V. (2004). Provjera empirijske zasnovanosti dvije vrste konformizma. Rad predstavljen na X Naučnom skupu Empirijska istraživanja u psihologiji, Beograd, Srbija.
Čudina Obradović, M. (1991). Nadarenost – razumijevanje, prepoznavanje, razvijanje. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533−552. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4
Dixon, M. R., Hayes, L. J., & Aban, I. B. (2000). Examining the roles of rule following, reinforcement, and preexperimental histories on risk-taking behavior. The Psychological Record, 50, 687−704.
Doll, B. B., Jacobs, W. B., Sanfey, A. G., & Frank, M. J. (2009). Instructional control of reinforcement learning. Brain Research, 1299, 74−94. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.007
Griggs, R. A. (2009). Psychology: A concise introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.
Hayes, S. C. (1989). Rule-governed behavior, cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. Reno, Nevada: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1985). Verbal behavior, equivalence classes, and rules: New definitions, data, and directions. Invited talk presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Columbus, OH.
Hayes, S. C., & Gifford, E. V. (1997). The trouble with language: Experiential avoidance, rules, and the nature of verbal events. Psychological Science, 8, 170–173.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 45, 237−256. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.45-237
Hayes, S. C., Holme, D. B., & Roche, B. (2002). Relation frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hayes, S. C., Zettle, R., & Rosenfarb, I. (1989). Rule-following. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 191−220). New York: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-0447-16
Janković, J. i Krnetić, I. (2016). Uticaj verbalnog sadržaja instrukcije na dužinu praćenja disfunkcionalnog pravila. Radovi, 171−209.
Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627−633. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
Kostić, A. (2006). Kognitivna psihologija. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Kubanek, J., Snyder, L. H., & Abrams, R. A. (2015). Reward and punishment act as distinct factor in guiding behavior. Cognition, 139, 154−167.
Kudadjie-Gyamfi, E., & Rachlin, H. (2002). Rule-governed versus contingency-governed behavior in a self-control task: Effects of changes in contingencies. Behavioural Processes, 57, 29−35. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(01)00205-4
Malott, R. W., & Suarez, E. A. T. (2004). Principles of behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
McAuliffe, D., Hughes, S., & Holmes, D. B. (2014). The dark-side of rule governed behavior: An experimental analysis of problematic rule-following in an adolescent population with depressive symptomatology. Behavior Modification, 38, 587−613. doi:10.1177/0145445514521630
Milosavljević, B. (2001). Uvod u socijalnu psihologiju. Banja Luka: Filozofski fakultet.
NetBeans IDE 8.2 [računarski softver]. (2016). Preuzeto sa https://netbeans.org/
Pelӑez, M., & Moreno, R. (1999). For dimensions of rules and their correspodence to rule governed behavior: A taxonomy. Behavioral Development, 8, 21−27. doi:10.1037/h0100528
Petz, B. (2005). Psihologijski riječnik. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C. D. (2004). Behavior analysis and learning (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Quiñones, J. L. (2008). Relational coherence and transformation of function in ambiguous and unambiguous relational networks (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Reno.
Ramnerö, J., & Törnike, N. (2008). The ABC-s of human behavior: Behavioral principles for the practical clinican. Oakland: New Harbinger Publications.
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270−277. doi:10.1037/h0062535
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The evolution of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 41, 217−221.
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Törneke, N., Luciano, C., & Salas, S. V. (2008). Rule-governed behavior and psychological problems. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8, 141−156.
Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Empirical models of formative augmenting in accordance with the relations of same, opposite, more-than, and less-than. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 285−302.
Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., Farkas, P., Hayes, S. C., & Dougher, M. J. (1994). Correlation between self-reported rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 659–671. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-659
Yechiam E., & Hochman, G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 497−518. doi:10.1037/a0029383
Zettle, R. D., & Young, M. D. (1987). Rule-following and human operant responding: Conceptual and methodological considerations. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 33−39. doi:10.1007/BF03392818