Stepping up to the challenge of complex human behavior: A response to Ribes-Inesta’s response.
|
 |
|
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABSTRACT:
Ribes-Iñesta’s (2001) response does not clarify his (2000) position
on how rules or instructions affect behavior. Ribes-Iñesta (2001) states that
rules may be considered as “synonyms for behavioral and/or environmental
consistencies,” as “prescriptions” (p. 27), as “verbal discriminative stimuli”
(p. 28), and “contrary to what O’Hora and Barnes-Holmes advocate, . . . not
descriptions” (p. 27). These statements appear to contradict, at least in part,
his original (i.e., 2000) position that rules are “verbal descriptions of
functional contingencies” (p. 46), “verbal descriptions of previously
experienced contingencies” (p. 49), and that conceiving of rules as
discriminative stimuli was evidence of “defective logic” (footnote, p. 43).
Moreover, Ribes-Iñesta’s (2001) response does not address the central
concern of our response with regard to rules or instructions. That is, he does
not provide an account of the referential nature of such stimuli. Indeed,
there appears to be significant lack of clarity in this area.
|
|
|
|
STATISTICS
|
|
Click on # to view
|
|
Citations
|
|
0
|
|
References
|
|
0
|
|
Comments
|
|
0
|
|
Quality
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
Interest
|
|
0/0.00
|
|
View(er)s
|
|
1/327
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Prev |
Next |
|