CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Behavioral and Psychological StudiesChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentCategorization, perception, and language

Effects of coherence on speaker preference and rule-following

Open access
Bianchi, Paulo H., Perez, William F., Harte, Colin, Barnes-Holmes, Dermot·2021·Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento
DOI 10.18761/pac.2021.v12.rft.07
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Rule-following is affected by multiple variables. A relevant aspect of rules regards whether they “make sense”, that is, the extent to which the instruction coheres with previously reinforced patterns of relational responding. The present study aimed to evaluate the influence of relational coherence upon rule-following. After mastering a particular set of conditional relations (e.g., A1B1, A2B2), the participants were exposed to two speakers, one of which would “state” relations that cohered (e.g., A1B1, A2B2) with the participant’s previous relational training and the other that would present relations that were incoherent (e.g., A1B2, A2B1). Then, rule-following was measured in a preference test in which the participant would have to choose which of the two speakers would provide instructions in each test trial. Results show that the participants preferred the coherent speaker to provide instructions and followed the rules presented by that speaker throughout the test. Coherence is discussed as a critical aspect of rule following and preference for particular narratives.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18761/pac.2021.v12.rft.07

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Experimental studies have demonstrated that speaker reliability affects rule-following and that children differentiate between reliable and nonreliable speakers when learning new information.

    “This has been experimentally demonstrated in studies in which the speaker provides inaccurate rules, thus affecting subsequent rule-following (Bianchi et al., 2021;Martinez-Sanchez & Ribes-In ˜esta, 1996;Martinez & Tamayo, 2005), and in investigations into how children differentiate between reliable and nonreliable speakers when learning new information, including vocabulary (Mills, 2013).”

    From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Bianchi et al., 2021

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that a speaker’s prior coherence influenced speaker preference and rule-following. But Phase 3 established coherence through symbol pairings, not inaccurate rules, and the methods state that both speakers’ rules in the subsequent preference test were always consistent with the task contingencies. The separate claim about children is attributed to Mills (2013), not Bianchi et al. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Acting congruently with the thought means acting congruently with the instructions of an unreliable speaker who should not be trusted.

    “Specifically, if the person acts congruently with the verbal relations established in the thought, they are also acting congruently with the instructions of an unreliable speaker, which has shown that they should not be trusted (cf.Bianchi et al., 2021).”

    From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Bianchi et al., 2021

    The Discussion reports that participants generally preferred the speaker whose earlier statements were coherent and followed that speaker’s rule. But the Methods say both speakers’ instructions in the preference test were always correct, so the study does not establish that the less-preferred speaker’s instructions were unreliable or should not be trusted. The application to thoughts is the citing authors’ analogy, not a finding of this study. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Because incoherent networks disrupt communication and problem solving, perceiving an incoherent network can hinder transformation of function and reduce the thought's control over behavior.

    “Because incoherent networks disrupt communication and problem solving, perceiving incoherent networks can hinder their transformation of function, reducing the thought's control over behavior (cf.Bianchi et al., 2021).”

    From A Process-Based Analysis of Cognitive Defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2023) · cites this paper as Bianchi et al., 2021

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that participants initially preferred the coherent speaker and that coherence appeared to influence speaker preference and rule-following. The paper also says reduced coherence can reduce a rule’s behavioral control. It does not establish that incoherent networks disrupt communication or problem solving, or that perceiving one hinders transformation of function and thereby reduces a thought’s control over behavior. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Bern, R., Persdotter, T., Harte, C., & Barnes- Holmes, D. (2020). Relational coherence and persistent rule-following: the impact of target- ing coherence in a 'non-critical' component of a relational network. The Psychological Record. Advanced Online Publication. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40732-020-00414-1 · DOI
  2. Biglan, A. (2016). A functional contextualist ap- proach to cultural evolution. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Contextual Behavioral Science (1st ed., pp. 385-397).
  3. Catania, C. A. (1979). Learning. Prentice Hall.
  4. de Almeida, J. H., Cortez, M. D., & de Rose, J. C. (2020). The effects of monitoring on children's rule-following in a computerized procedure. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 36(2), 295-307. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-020-00130-5 · DOI
  5. dos Reis, M. D. J. D., Perez, W. F., & Arantes, A. K. L. (2013). Perdas e ganhos: efeitos de con- sequências programadas sobre o seguimen- to de regras. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 6(2), 125-148. http://doi.org/ 10.18542/rebac.v6i2.1115 · DOI
  6. Galbraith, J. K. (1983). The anatomy of power. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 26(3), 26-33.
  7. Harte, C. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2021). The status of rule governed behavior as pliance, tracking and augmenting within relational frame the- ory: Middle-level rather than technical terms. The Psychological Record. Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732- 021-00458-x · DOI
  8. Harte, C., Barnes-Holmes, D, Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Kissi, A. (2020). The study of rule-governed be- havior and derived stimulus relations: Bridging the gap. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43, 361-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020- 00256-w · DOI
  9. Harte, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McEnteggart, C. (2018). The impact of high versus low levels of derivation for mu- tually and combinatorially entailed relations on persistent rule-following. Behavioural Processes, 157, 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. beproc.2018.08.005. · DOI
  10. Harte, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McEnteggart, C. (2020). Exploring the im- pact of coherence (through the presence ver- sus absence of feedback) and levels of deriva- tion on persistent rule-following. Learning and Behavior. Advanced Online Publication. https:// doi.org/10.3758/s13420-020-00438-1 · DOI
  11. Harte, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., McEnteggart, C., Gys, J., & Hassler, C. (2020). Exploring the potential impact of relational coherence on persistent rule-following: The first study. Learning and Behavior, 48, 373-391. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-019-00399-0 · DOI
  12. Harte, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Moreira, M., de Almeida, J. H., Aparecida-Passarelli, D., & de Rose, J. C. (2021). Exploring a Training IRAP as a single participant context for analyzing reversed derived relations and persistent rule- following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 115(2), 460-480. https://doi. org/10.1002/jeab.671 · DOI
  13. Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule- governed from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46(2), 137-147. https://doi.org/10.1901/ jeab.1986.46-137 · DOI
  14. Johnson, N. F., Leahy, R., Restrepo, N. J., Velasquez, N., Zheng, M., Manrique, P. & Wuchty, S. (2019). Hidden resilience and adaptive dynam- ics of the global online hate ecology. Nature, 573(7773), 261-265. Revista Perspectivas 2021 Early View RFT Special Volume pp.214-227
  15. Knuth, Donald E. Art of computer programming, volume 2: Seminumerical algorithms. Addison- Wesley Professional, 2014.
  16. Perez, W. F., Tomanari, G. Y., & Vaidya, M. (2015). Effects of select and reject control on equiva- lence class formation and transfer of function. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104(2), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jeab.164 · DOI
  17. Shimoff, E., Catania, A.C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to sched- ule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36(2), 207-220. https://doi. org/10.1901/jeab.1981.36-207 · DOI
  18. Sidman, M. (1987). Two choices are not enough. Behavior Analysis, 22(1), 11-18.
  19. Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 14, 5-13. https//:doi. org/10.1044/jshr.1401.05 · DOI
  20. Sidman, M. & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional dis- crimination versus matching to sample: An ex- pansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 37, 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5 · DOI
  21. Wray, A. M., Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D. A., & Guinther, P. M. (2017). Examining the reinforc- ing properties of making sense: A preliminary investigation. The Psychological Record, 62, 599- 622. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395823 Informações do Artigo Histórico do artigo: Submetido em: 20/01/2021 Primeira decisão editorial: 06/03/2021 Aceito em: 29/04/2021 Editor associado: Marcelo V. Silveira · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bianchi, P. H., Perez, W. F., Harte, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D.
Affiliations
  • Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares (BR)
  • National College of Ireland (IE)
Corresponding author
Perez, William F.
ORCID
Venue
Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento
Publisher
Associacao Paradigma - Centro de Ciencias e Tecnologia do Comportamento
Published
2021-05-05
ISSN
2177-3548 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.18761/pac.2021.v12.rft.07
OpenAlex
W3161031662
Cited by
8
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento (publishedVersion)
  • NORMA (submittedVersion)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (08/57705-8)
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (#573972/2008-7, 465,686/2014–1, 2014-1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
rule-following, relational coherence, speaker preferences, conditional relations, relational responding, preference test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review