JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 2014, 102, 6685 NUMBER 1 (JULY)

ANTECEDENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL CONTROL OF DERIVED INSTRUCTION-FOLLOWING

DENIS OHORA1, DERMOT BARNES-HOLMES2, AND IAN STEWART1
1
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY
2
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, MAYNOOTH

It is possible to understand instructions and yet not follow them. In the current study, participants
responded in accordance with derived instructions and then this relational repertoire was brought under
over-arching consequential control. Across two experiments, nine undergraduates, trained to respond in
accordance with Same/Different and Before/After relations in the presence of arbitrary contextual cues,
produced sequences of responses based on instructions composed of novel stimuli and the previously
trained relational cues. Consequences for following instructions were then manipulated. In Experiment 1,
for all five participants that responded in accordance with derived relations, reinforcing and punishing
instruction-following generalized to novel instructions. In Experiment 2, reinforcing and punishing
consequences were varied systematically in the presence of two novel antecedent stimuli and antecedent
control was observed for all three participants. These findings demonstrate that understanding instructions
and following them may be subject to independent sources of stimulus control.
Key words: instructional control, rule-governed behavior, derived stimulus relations, relational frame
theory, consequential control, antecedent control, discrimination

The vast majority of the experimental studies
of instructional control have employed known
words as instructional stimuli (e.g., Catania,
Matthews, & Shimoff, 1982; Galizio, 1979; Hayes,
Brownstein, Haas, & Greenway, 1986; Kaufman,
Baron, & Kopp, 1966; Leander, Lippman, &
Meyer, 1968). A number of commentators,
however, have suggested that the use of such
stimuli is problematic in that the individual
behavioral histories that give rise to the
referential functions of the words that make
up those instructions are unknown and, more
importantly, may be different across participants
(Parrot, 1987; Schoenfeld & Cumming, 1963). A
limited number of studies that have recently
examined instructional control, however, have
provided detailed behavioral histories in the
context of experimental stimuli in an attempt to
standardize these histories across participants.
Denis OHora and Ian Stewart, School of Psychology,
National University of Ireland Galway, University Road,
Galway, Ireland. Dermot Barnes-Holmes, School of Psychol-
ogy, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Maynooth,
Co. Kildare, Ireland.
These data were submitted as part of the first authors
doctoral work, which was supported by a Government of
Ireland Scholarship in the Humanities and Social Sciences
and a Research Studentship from National University of
Ireland, Maynooth.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Denis OHora. School of Psychology, National
University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway,
Ireland. Email: denis.ohora@nuigalway.ie
doi: 10.1002/jeab.95
These studies rarely use combinations of known
words as instructions because, as per the
criticisms just mentioned, to do so would be to
depend on the preexperimental histories of
reinforcement. Instead, using meaningless stim-
uli, researchers have attempted to replicate in
the laboratory the behavioral histories that
establish instructional control in the natural
environment. In the main, such studies have
either defined an instruction as a discriminative
stimulus (Okouchi, 1999) or as a series of stimuli
that participate in derived relations (Hayes,
Thompson, & Hayes, 1989; OHora, Barnes-
Holmes, Roche, & Smeets, 2004).
The definition of instructional control or rule
governance1 as a form of discriminative control
has been proposed by a number of theorists and
has been attributed somewhat controversially to
Skinner (1969; see Parrott, 1987). The most
problematic concern for such a theory is to
account for control by novel instructions. This is
because the definition of discriminative control
as established through differential reinforce-
ment (Michael, 1980) seems to preclude control
by novel instructions, except through primary
stimulus generalization. Cerutti (1989), howev-
er, contended that control by novel instructions
might be explained by the combination of
1
In the current paper, we will use the term instructions
to refer to relatively discrete, often other-provided prescrip-
tive statements, and rules to refer to the broader class of
complex verbal stimuli of which instructions are a subset.

66
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
previously established discriminative stimuli pre-
sented in novel sequences. Imagine, for example,
that a history of reinforcement is provided for
following the two instructions Go to the ball and
Look at the oven. If the listener is then presented
with the novel instruction go to the oven, an
appropriate response may follow because the
novel instruction is simply composed of parts of
the two previously reinforced instructions (cf.
Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan,
2000). Specifically, going to and looking at
are responses that have been differentially
reinforced in the presence of the stimuli Go
to and Look at, respectively, and actions
towards balls and towards ovens have been
differentially reinforced in the presence of the
stimuli the ball and the oven. Conse- were first highlighted in the operant literature
quently, when these previously established dis-
criminative stimuli are combined in novel ways
(e.g., Go to the oven), these discriminative
stimuli control behavior in accordance with the
instruction (e.g., Go to occasions approach and
the oven conditions the response to occur in
the presence of the oven). According to this view,
instructions that control novel behavior are
composed of sequences of already established
discriminative stimuli. As more discriminative
stimuli are established, the number of possible
combinations increases quickly and, thus, such
control can be quite generative (e.g., Dermer &
Rodgers, 1997).
Okouchis (1999) work on instructional
control constitutes an empirical example of
such control established through differential
reinforcement. Okouchi (1999) employed an
experimental history to establish instructional
control in opposition to the literal meanings of
words. Participants were first exposed to a
multiple fixed ratio (FR) 45differential rein-
forcement of low-rate behavior (DRL) 5s
schedule. After multiple-schedule control had
been demonstrated, inaccurate instructions
were presented during the two schedules (Press
slowly during the FR, and Press quickly
during the DRL) while the original multiple
schedule stimuli were faded out (i.e., thus
leaving a mixed schedule). In this way, Press
slowly was established as an SD for pressing
quickly and Press quickly was established as an
SD for pressing slowly. When participants were
subsequently exposed to a nondifferential fixed
interval (FI)//FI multiple schedule, three of the
four participants continued to respond quickly
in the presence of Press slowly, and slowly in
67
the presence of Press quickly. Although this
was a simpler form of instructional control than
that described by Cerutti (1989), it provided
evidence that participants could be trained to
respond to instructions based on an experimen-
tal history of differential reinforcement. That is,
the rate of responding specified or referred
to by the instruction was that established
through differential reinforcement.
More recently, a distinction has been drawn
between responding to instructions that de-
pends largely on discriminative control and
generalization, as proposed by Cerutti (1989)
and Okouchi (1999), and relational instruction-
al control (Tarbox, Tarbox, & OHora, 2009).
These more complex forms of relational control
by Sidman and colleagues early work on
stimulus equivalence (e.g., Sidman, 1971; Sid-
man & Tailby, 1982). A number of theorists have
since provided behavioral explanations of
symbolic language from the perspective of the
listener or instruction follower (Hayes, Barnes-
Holmes, & Roche, 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996;
Sidman, 1994). Hayes and Hayes (1989) provid-
ed a definition of instructional control based on
one such approach, Relational Frame Theory
(RFT). From an RFT perspective, following
instructions occurs when a behavioral history
(a) facilitates responding in accordance with
networks of derived relations (Hayes & Hayes,
1989) and (b) includes a history of reinforce-
ment for following instructions (e.g., pliance and
tracking; Zettle & Hayes, 1982). For instance, it is
possible for a trusted speaker to provide an
almost infinite variety of novel instructions that a
listener will attempt to follow. In contrast, a
listener is unlikely to follow the instructions of an
untrusted speaker, even if the listener can report
what the untrusted speaker requested them to
do. A heuristic distinction can thus be made
between contingencies for understanding in-
structions and following instructions.
In considering the example, When the bell
rings, then go to the oven and get the cake,
Hayes and Hayes (1989) posited two different
types of relational responding that might
explain control by the foregoing instruction.
First, they suggested that certain words partici-
pate in coordination (equivalence) relations
with environmental events and responses (i.e.,
the word oven with actual ovens, the words go
to with approach). The functions of environ-
mental stimuli (e.g., an oven) may then be
68 DENIS OHORA et al.
transformed in accordance with these derived
relations. In this example, the spoken phrase, go
to the oven, may result in the actual oven
occasioning an approach response. Furthermore,
Hayes and Hayes suggested that certain words
occasion responding in accordance with tempo-
ral relations (i.e., when, then, and and participants consistently demonstrated respond-
established the sequence; bell BEFORE oven
BEFORE cake). In this example, an approach
response will not be likely in the presence of the
oven until after the bell is heard. When an
individuals behavior demonstrates simultaneous
control by derived relations (by coordination and
temporal relations in the example above), they
are said to be responding in accordance with a
network of derived relations or relational
network. It is this complex relational control
that constitutes understanding an instruction
from an RFT perspective. So when a person
understands the instruction, When the bell rings,
then go to the oven and get the cake, the
instruction specifies the sequence (temporal
relational control) in which environmental stim-
uli will occasion the particular functions (coordi-
nation relational control) specified by the
instruction (see also Barnes-Holmes, OHora,
Roche, Hayes, Bissett, & Lyddy, 2001).
The first empirical example of derived
instructional control was provided by L. J. Hayes
et al. (1989). They trained three groups of
musically naive participants on timing and
placement equivalence classes in which musi-
cal notes were used as initially neutral stimuli.
Playing the notes for the correct duration in the
test session required a transfer of functions
indirectly via equivalence and playing the
correct note required symmetry. Following
training, sequences of written musical notes
controlled sequences of derived musical re-
sponses as expected, an example of relational
instructional control (Tarbox et al., 2009).
OHora et al. (2004) provided an empirical
model of the type of instructional control
suggested by Hayes and Hayes (1989) that
brought both coordination (equivalence) and
temporal relations under experimental control.
Across two experiments, these researchers
trained 12 participants to respond in accordance
with Same, Different, Before and After relations
in the presence of particular contextual cues.
Participants were then exposed to a series of test
probes in which 12 novel stimuli (8 nonsense
syllables and 4 colored squares) were presented
along with the Same, Different, Before and After
contextual cues established in pretraining.
These stimulus presentations constituted in-
structions that specified sequences of key
presses on colored keys on the computer
keyboard (e.g., Blue Before Red Before Green
Before Yellow). Across two experiments, 8 of 11
ing in accordance with networks of derived
coordination and temporal relations. In Experi-
ment 2 of the study, all participants that
consistently demonstrated this performance (5
out of 8) also did so for 24 sets of novel stimuli.
The current experiments investigated wheth-
er such derived instruction-following could be
brought under consequential control and
under discriminative control by antecedent
stimuli. Specifically, we asked whether or not
derived instruction-following is sensitive to
reinforcement and punishment and whether
or not such higher-level operant behavior could
be brought under control of stimuli that
signaled these consequences.
Experiment 1
OHora et al. (2004) provided an empirical
model of instructional control in which a series
of key press responses were arranged in time
through the participation of nonsense syllables
and colored stimuli in a network of derived
temporal and coordination relations. At issue
was whether findings obtained with instructions
composed of known words (e.g., Okouchi,
1999) would also be observed with OHora
et al.s laboratory model of instructional control.
Experiment 1 therefore sought to determine if
responding in accordance with derived relation-
al networks is sensitive to reinforcement and
punishment. Participants were first exposed to
the five stages of the empirical model of
instructional control reported by OHora et al.
Following successful performance, participants
were exposed to a further stage in which
feedback for following the derived rules was
systematically altered in a reversal design.
Method
Participants. Six undergraduates, two male and
four female, attending the National University
of Ireland, Maynooth, volunteered to take part
in the study. Participants were aged between 19
and 25 years and were recruited through
personal contacts from a variety of degree
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
programs other than psychology. None of the
participants had previously participated in
psychological experiments and all were asked
not to discuss participation with anyone until the
study was completed.
Apparatus. Participants were seated alone in
front of an Apple iMac1 computer with a 1400
color display in a small (2 m  2 m) experi-
mental room. Participants attended for 2-hr
blocks and one (Participant 2) required more
than one visit to the laboratory to complete
training and testing. All participants complet-
ed the final stage of the experiment in one 2-hr
session. Presentation of stimuli and recording
of responses were controlled by the experi-
ment-generating software application Psy-
Scope (Cohen, MacWhinney, Flatt, &
Provost, 1993). The letters Z, C, B, and M on
the keyboard were covered by different col-
ored squares of masking tape (green, red, blue,
and yellow, respectively).
Four arbitrary stimuli, each consisting of a
string of three or four characters (i.e., %%%, !!!,
()(),::::) were assigned the roles of Same,
Different, Before, and After. Geometric shapes
were employed as stimuli during relational
pretraining and testing. In the Test for Instruc-
tional Control, eight nonsense syllables (LIB,
DAX, MIM, VEK, CUG, GAN, JOM, MUB), and
four colored squares (green, red, blue, and
yellow) were employed as stimuli. In the text, the
nonsense syllables will be referred to using the
alpha-numerics B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2, C3, and
C4, respectively, and the colored squares are
designated A1, A2, A3 and A4. Participants were
not exposed to these labels. In the final
consequential control stage of the current
experiment, 24 novel stimulus sets were em-
ployed; eight sets of eight nonsense syllables,
eight sets of eight arbitrary shapes and eight sets
of eight random pictures (see Appendix 1).
Procedure. Pretraining of Before and After
relational responding. This phase aimed to estab-
lish contextual control functions by two arbitrary
stimuli to be used during the Test for Instructional
Control. First, the following instructions were
presented:
In a moment two sets of images will
appear on the screen. Next, two further
images will appear at the top of the
screen. Look at these two images and
69
then choose one of the sets of images
that appeared at the start.
If you wish to choose the set of images
on the left, choose the colored button
furthest to the left. If you wish to choose
the set of images on the right then you
should press the colored button fur-
thest to the right.
Hit any key when you are ready to
begin.
At the beginning of each pretraining trial and
test probe, two arrays of stimuli were gradually
presented at the bottom left and right corners of
the screen (see Fig. 1). Reading from bottom-to-
top, each complete array consisted of two
arbitrary shapes (e.g., a square and a circle)
with an arbitrary contextual cue presented
between them (e.g., ()() as BEFORE; hereafter,
relational contextual cues will be presented in
block capital letters). For example, in Figure 1,
the complete stimulus arrays were square
BEFORE circle on the left and circle BEFORE
square on the right. Both arrays of stimuli were
presented in a sequence such that the first
arbitrary shape in both arrays (square on the left
and circle on the right; Panel 1) was presented
simultaneously at opposite sides of the screen
followed by the simultaneous presentation of
the contextual cues (BEFORE, Panel 2) fol-
lowed by simultaneous presentation of the
second arbitrary shapes (circle on the left and
square on the right; Panel 3). This presentation
served to encourage participants to read up the
screen. Following presentation of these stimulus
arrays, one of the two constituent arbitrary
shapes (e.g., a square; Panel 4) was then
presented for 1 s above the two arrays of stimuli,
and then disappeared. Following an interstimu-
lus interval of 0.5 s (Panel 5), the second
arbitrary shape (e.g., a circle) was then pre-
sented for 1 s (Panel 6).
In order to establish contextual control of
responding in accordance with Before and After
relations, choosing one of the two stimulus
arrays presented at the bottom of the screen was
reinforced based upon the order in which the
two shapes were presented at the top of the
screen. Reinforcement was provided in the form
70 DENIS OHORA et al.

Fig. 1. A representative task from pretraining for Before and After relational responding. At the beginning of a trial (Steps
1 to 3), shapes appeared in two 3-stimulus upward sequences (e.g., Square Before Circle and Circle Before Square) at a rate of
one stimulus per half second. Next (Steps 4 to 6), at the top of the screen, two stimuli were presented in a sequence, each
presented for half a second with a break of half a second between them. Finally (Step 7), participants were required to choose
one of the two sets of shapes at the bottom of the screen. The word Before was not presented to participants, but is used here
to indicate the function that was to be established in arbitrary contextual cues. Test probes were identical in form but novel
shapes were employed in the absence of reinforcement.

of visual verbal feedback; the word Correct
appeared in the center of the computer screen.
Incorrect responses were followed by the word
Wrong, similarly presented. For example, in a
typical trial to establish the function of before
in the arbitrary shape ()(), if a square-circle
sequence was presented at the top of the screen,
choosing Square ()() Circle (read from the
bottom to the top in Panel 7 of Fig. 1) was then
reinforced. In this way, responding in accor-
dance with a before relation was gradually
established in the presence of the arbitrary
stimulus ()(). On further trials, given a choice
between Square:::: Circle and Circle::::
Square, and the same squarecircle sequence,
choosing Circle:::: Square was reinforced. In
this way, the second arbitrary shape, ::::,
acquired the function of after.
For each pair of shapes presented in a
particular order at the top of the screen, there
were three trial types. Participants were exposed
to four blocks across which these different trial
types were introduced gradually. First, they were
exposed to a block of trials in which only
BEFORE cues were presented in the stimulus
arrays (e.g., Square BEFORE Circle or Circle
BEFORE Square) for a minimum of eight trials
and were required to reach a criterion of four
consecutive correct responses. After satisfying
this criterion, they were exposed to a second
block of trials that included only AFTER
contextual cues (e.g., Square AFTER Circle or
Circle AFTER Square) for a minimum of eight
trials and until each participant emitted four
consecutive correct responses. They were then
exposed to a third block in which BEFORE-only
and AFTER-only trials were intermixed for a
minimum of eight trials with the same mastery
criterion. Finally, they were exposed to a block
of 16 trials including four Before-only trials, four
After-only trials, and eight Mixed trials, in which
both BEFORE and AFTER cues were presented
within trials (e.g., Square BEFORE Circle or
Square AFTER Circle). The mastery criterion
for pretraining was set at 14/16 on the last block
of trials.
When participants achieved the mastery
criterion for pretraining they were exposed to
a test session (no reinforcement) and novel
shapes were used (pass criterion of 30/32
correct). When participants satisfied the mas-
tery criterion on the test for Before and After
relational responding (no participants failed at
this stage), they were exposed to pretraining
and testing for Same and Different relations.
Pretraining and testing for Same and Different
relations. This phase used a match-to-sample
(MTS) type procedure. As before, minimal
instructions were provided:
In a moment some images will appear
on this screen. Your task is to look at the
image at the bottom of the screen, then
look at the images in the middle of the
screen, and at the top of the screen. On
the basis of these images, choose one of
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
the images at the bottom of the screen
by pressing one of the colored buttons
in front of you.
If you want to choose the image on the
left, choose the colored button furthest
to the left. If you want to choose the
image on the right, choose the colored
button furthest to the right.
Hit any key when you are ready to
begin.
Sample and comparison stimuli consisting of
shapes of varying size were presented in a typical
two-choice MTS format, with two comparisons at
the bottom of the screen and the sample above
them in the screen center. Above the sample, a
stimulus (%%% or ///) to be established as
either the contextual cue SAME or DIFFERENT
was presented. In each trial or probe, stimuli
appeared on the screen in a sequence begin-
ning with the comparison stimuli at the bottom
of the screen and concluding with the contex-
tual cue at the top. This pattern was employed to
encourage participants to read up the screen
as in the Before/After training phase. Visual
verbal feedback was provided as in the previous
phase. The contextual cue, sample, and com-
parisons remained until a response was re-
corded. In the presence of %%% (SAME),
choosing the comparison stimulus (e.g., long
line) that was the same as the sample stimulus
(e.g., long line) was reinforced. In the presence
of /// (DIFFERENT), choosing the comparison
(short line) that was different from the sample
stimulus (long line) was reinforced. Thus, the
stimuli %%% and /// were established as
controlling Same and Different relational
responding.
Participants were exposed to a minimum of
two blocks of eight trials. The mastery criterion
for pretraining for Same and Different relations
was 7/8 correct on the last block of pretraining
trials. When participants met this criterion, they
completed a testing (unreinforced) session
consisting of two blocks of eight trials using
novel stimuli.
Test for instructional control. Next, participants
were presented with 28 instruction probes that
required participants to respond in accordance
71
with derived Same, Different, Before, and After
relations without reinforcement. Once again,
minimal instructions were used:
In a moment a series of images will
appear at the bottom of this screen. A
second series of images will then appear
above those images. You must press the
colored keys on the keyboard in a
particular sequence based on the images
on the computer screen. When you are
finished pressing the colored keys, you
must press the RETURN key to proceed.
Hit any key when you are ready to
begin.
At the start of each probe, an array of stimuli
was presented in a vertical series from the bottom
center of the screen. For the first four probes, the
stimulus array was presented gradually in an
upwards direction (see below). Each array
included all four C stimuli (C1, C2, C3 or C4)
in a random order interspersed with BEFORE or
AFTER relational contextual cues (see Fig. 2).
Between each pair of C stimuli, either a BEFORE
or AFTER contextual cue was presented (e.g.,
reading upwards: C1 BEFORE C2 BEFORE C3
BEFORE C4). Within a trial, the three cues
between the C stimuli were always the same (i.e.,
three BEFORE or three AFTER stimuli). Half of
the test trials featured BEFORE stimuli and the
other half featured AFTER stimuli.
Following presentation of the array of C
stimuli and temporal cues, an interval of 1 s
elapsed before arrays of A, B, and C stimuli and
SAME or DIFFERENT contextual cues were
presented at the top of the screen. On the top
left side of the screen, four arrays of A and B
stimuli were presented, each B stimulus (a
nonsense syllable) was presented beneath an A
stimulus (a colored square) and above these, a
contextual cue was presented (e.g., reading
upwards: B1 A1 Same). On the top right side of
the screen, four arrays of B and C stimuli were
presented; each C stimulus (also a nonsense
syllable) was presented beneath a B stimulus and
above these, a contextual cue was presented
(e.g. reading upwards: C1 B1 Same). As shown
in Figure 2, the arrays of stimuli and contextual
cues were presented in slots. The slot in which
each array was presented varied randomly across
72 DENIS OHORA et al.

Fig. 2. A test probe from instruction-following stage in Experiment 2 is presented in the left panel. Probes in the Test for
Instructional Control in both experiments and the instruction-following stage in Experiment 1 were the same but the X1/X2
stimuli were not presented. The words SAME, DIFFERENT, BEFORE and AFTER denote contextual cues established in
pretraining. Sequences of presses on colored keys were predicted based on the C and A stimuli and SAME or DIFFERENT
cues presented at the top of the screen (e.g., A1, green, is the same as B1, which is the same as C1), and the bottom-up order of
C stimuli and BEFORE or AFTER cues presented in the center of the screen (e.g., C1 is before C2, which is before C3 and so
on). The correct response to the above probe was Green Red Yellow Blue. During Experiment 2, consequences for
derived instructed responses were systematically manipulated in the presence of arbitrary X1 and X2 stimuli in the final
stages.

trials between the four possible slots for that
array (e.g., the array, C1 B1 Same, was presented
in a random slot from the four on the top right
of the screen in relevant trials).
On each probe trial, a particular four-key
sequence constituted a correct response. Given
the stimulus array C1 BEFORE C2 BEFORE C3
BEFORE C4 (reading upwards) at the bottom of
the screen, and the arrays C1 B1 SAME / C2 B2
SAME / C3 B3 SAME / C4 B4 SAME, and B1 A1
(green) SAME / B2 A2 (red) SAME / B3 A3
(yellow) SAME / B4 A4 (blue) SAME at the top
of the screen, the correct four key response was
Green Red Yellow Blue, followed by the
[RETURN] key. Given the stimuli C1 BEFORE
C2 BEFORE C3 BEFORE C4, and the stimuli C1
B1 DIFFERENT / C2 B2 DIFFERENT / C3 B3
DIFFERENT / C4 B4 DIFFERENT, and B1 A1
(green) SAME / B2 A2 (red) SAME / B3 A3
(yellow) SAME / B4 C4 (blue) SAME at the top
of the screen, the response specified was: Not
Green Not Red Not Yellow Not Blue. In
practice, any response other than Green Red
Yellow Blue, followed by the [RETURN] key
was considered correct. In the current experi-
ment, the derived instructions were limited to
those that included either all SAME contextual
cues in the presence of A-B and B-C pairs (All-
Same) or SAME contextual cues in presence of
A-B pairs and DIFFERENT contextual cues in
the presence of B-C pairs (Same-Different).
The first four probes in the Test for
Instructional Control included only SAME
contextual cues (All-Same). During these
probes, the set of C stimuli and temporal cues
at the bottom of the screen appeared in a
sequence from the bottom of the screen at the
start of a probe (e.g., C1 BEFORE C2
BEFORE C3 BEFORE C4). Following
these four All-Same probe trials, participants
completed 24 trials, 12 of which were All-Same
and 12 were Same-Different probes presented in
no particular order. In the final 24 trials, sets of
C stimuli appeared simultaneously.
Consequential control of derived instruction-
following. The final stage included five separate
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
phases conducted in the sequence shown in
Table 1. In each phase, the participants task
was identical to that in the preceding tests for
instructional control. Participants who com-
pleted the stages prior to this were deemed to
have already demonstrated responding in
accordance with derived instructions (i.e.,
relational instruction-following). In this final
stage, we sought to examine whether derived
instruction-following was sensitive to its con-
sequences. To facilitate comparison with the
previous stages, the appropriate four-key se-
quence specified by the stimulus arrays in each
probe is labeled the instructed sequence
during this phase. Feedback for these in-
structed sequences was manipulated across
stages. The experimental instru- ctions were
the same as those for the previous stage and did
not mention consequences.
1. Baseline. Six novel stimulus sets (each
stimulus set included 4 B and 4 C stimuli)
were employed during this phase: two novel sets
of nonsense syllables, two novel sets of arbitrary
shapes, and two novel sets of clip art pictures.
Twelve probes, two from each of these novel sets
were presented and no feedback was provided
for response sequences (similar to the Test for
Instructional Control).
2. Instruction-following Punished. Six novel
stimulus sets were used (two sets of nonsense
syllables, two sets of shapes and two sets of clip
art). If the participant made the instructed
sequence of key presses, the word Wrong
appeared in the center of the screen and the
spoken word Wrong was presented by the
computer. Any other sequence of responses was
followed by auditory and textual Correct
feedback. In this way, during this phase,
instructed responding was punished and other
response sequences were reinforced. Partici-
pants were first exposed to a minimum of two
blocks of six trials with additional blocks
presented until no more than one instructed
Table 1
Sequence of phases and mastery criteria in the final stage of Experiment 1
Phase Stimulus sets
Baseline 6 sets
Instructed Responses Punished 6 sets
Unreinforced Probes 1 6 sets
Instructed Responses Reinforced 6 sets
Unreinforced Probes 2 (1 2) 12 sets
73
response was emitted in a block. This constitut-
ed a punishment criterion.
3. Unreinforced Probes 1. Once again, six sets
of novel stimuli were used. No feedback was
presented during this phase, which involved a
maximum of 36 probe trials.
4. Instruction-following Reinforced. Again, six
novel stimulus sets were employed in this phase.
As in the second phase, feedback was presented
after each response sequence. However, in this
phase, instructed response sequences were
followed by Correct feedback and other
sequences by Wrong feedback. Participants
completed a minimum of two blocks of six trials
with additional blocks presented until at least five
instructed responses were emitted in a block.
5. Unreinforced Probes 2. In the final phase, no
feedback was presented and participants com-
pleted twenty-four probe trials. Twelve trials
included stimulus sets from Baseline and twelve
included sets from Unreinforced Probes 1. This
allowed us to determine if participants would
break with their previous pattern of not follow-
ing instructions when Unreinforced Probes 1
stimuli were used.
Results and Discussion
Participants performances on the first five
stages of the current experiment (Pretraining
and testing for Before and After relational
responding, Pretraining and testing for Same
and Different relational responding and the
Test for Instructional Control) are summarized
in Table 2. Four participants (P1, P2, P4, and P5)
met the mastery criterion in the Test for
Instructional Control condition within two
blocks of 24 probe trials. Participant 3 did not
meet this criterion within two blocks and had to
leave the laboratory due to personal commit-
ments. She returned on a subsequent day and
met the criterion in her first block of probe
trials. Participant 6 failed to pass this test but was
No. of trials/probes Mastery Criterion
12 probes
Minimum 12 trials 5/6 of last block
36 probes
Minimum 12 trials 5/6 of last block
24 probes
74 DENIS OHORA et al.

Table 2
Numbers of training trials and numbers of correct (per received) testing trials for participants during the
first five stages of Experiment 1.

Before/After Before/After Same/Different Same/Different Test for Instructional

Pretraining Test Pretraining Test Control

P1 133 32/32 16 15/16 21/24

P2 35 31/32 32 16/16 16/24
21/24
P3 207 48 16/16
35 31/32 3/24
32/32 2/24
32 32/32 16 16/16 24/24
P4 54 32/32 16 16/16 22/24
P5 45 32/32 16 16/16 13/24
16/16 22/24
P6 35 32/32 32 16/16 18/24
Note. Participant 3 was reexposed to all stages because she left the experiment and returned on a subsequent day.
Participant 6 was exposed to the final stage of the experiment without achieving criterion on the Test for Instructional
Control. An asterisk denotes responding that satisfied the mastery criterion.

inadvertently allowed to continue to the final
stage of the experiment. The behavior of
Participant 6 was not sensitive to contingencies
during the subsequent consequential control
stage and will not be detailed here.
Consequential control of derived instruction-
following. Figure 3 shows individual partici-
pants performances in the final conditions in
which consequences were arranged for instruc-
tion-following. Given the equal ratio of All-Same
trials, in which a specific sequence of button
presses was correct (e.g., Red-Green-Blue-Yel-
low), and Same-Different trials, in which any
sequence other than a specific sequence of
button presses was considered correct (e.g., Not
Red-Not Green-Not Blue-Not Yellow), chance
level of responding approximated 50% across a
block of twelve trials or probes.
1. Baseline. Participants 1 to 5 produced
100% correct responding during this phase.
2. Instruction-following Punished. The intro-
duction of corrective feedback had an immedi-
ate effect on the responding of four participants,
but Participant 2 continued to respond in
accordance with the instructions for 12 trials.
The responding of Participants 2, 3 and 4
satisfied the punishment criterion (a maximum
of 1/6 instructed responses within a block) after
36 trials in this phase. Participants 1 and 5
demonstrated this performance after 48 trials.
Participant 1 withdrew at this point.
3. Unreinforced Probes 1. During Unrein-
forced Probes 1, all four remaining participants
demonstrated extremely low levels of instructed
responding. Participant 4 did not emit one
instructed response across 40 trials and no
participant emitted more than 20% instructed
responses. Following this phase, Participant 2
withdrew from the experiment.
4. Instruction-following Reinforced. The intro-
duction of corrective feedback produced instant
effects on instructed responding. Within 24
trials, all three remaining participants (Partic-
ipants 3, 4, and 5) demonstrated instructed
responding on five or more trials across a six-
trial block.
5. Unreinforced Probes 2. When exposed to a
final block of twenty-four probes in Unrein-
forced Probes 2, participants continued to
demonstrate high levels of instructed respond-
ing in the presence of stimuli from stimulus sets
employed during both Baseline and Unrein-
forced Probes 1. This suggests that contingent
consequences influenced generalized instruc-
tion-following, an over-arching operant re-
sponse class.
To recap, six participants were trained to
respond in accordance with Same, Different,
Before and After relations and five demonstrat-
ed control in accordance with these relations in
a Test for Instructional Control. In a further test
that involved five phases, consequential control
of the generalized instructional response was
demonstrated unambiguously for three of these
five participants (Participants 3, 4 and 5). Two
participants (Participants 1 and 2) did not
complete all five phases but demonstrated the
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS 75

Fig. 3. Number of instructed responses in consecutive blocks of six probes for five participants across phases of the final
stage of Experiment 1. Black circles denote responses during Baseline, white diamonds during the Instruction Following
Punished phase and white triangles during the Instruction Following Reinforced phase. Black squares denote responding
during unreinforced probes.

expected control in the phases to which they
were exposed. One participant (Participant 6)
did not pass the test for instructional control and
performance by this participant across phases in
the final test was erratic.
Across phases of the Consequential Control
stage, consequences for instruction-following
were manipulated. In addition, novel stimulus
sets were introduced across the first four phases.
One potential weakness introduced by this
approach is that stimulus sets may have con-
founded the effect of consequences. In the final
phase, however, participants were exposed to
stimulus sets from Baseline and Unreinforced
Probes 1. Prior to this phase, participants had
reliably followed instructions composed of
Baseline stimulus sets and responded away
from instructions composed of Unreinforced
Probes 1 stimulus sets. In Unreinforced Probes 2,
however, participants responded similarly to all
instructions; they followed instructions com-
posed of both Baseline and Unreinforced Probes
1 stimulus sets. This outcome demonstrates that
the contingencies for generalized derived in-
struction-following outweighed prior experience
of responding to particular instructions.
76 DENIS OHORA et al.
The current research demonstrated that
instruction-following was influenced by contin-
gent consequences. The rapid reacquisition of
complex relational responses when reinforce-
ment was reintroduced suggests that the puni-
tive consequences operated on instruction-
following rather than understanding the in-
structions. To supplement this analysis of the
operant nature of instructional control, we next
investigated whether derived instruction-follow-
ing could be brought under the control of
antecedent stimuli. Such control parallels the
differential effects of authority figures on
instruction-following (e.g., Barrett, Deitz, Gay-
dos, & Quinn, 1987) and provides a preliminary
behavioral model of pliance (Hayes & Hayes,
1989; Zettle & Hayes, 1982).
Experiment 2
Experiment 2 investigated whether derived
instruction-following could be brought under
the control of antecedent stimuli. Experimental
evidence of stimulus control of instruction-
following has been demonstrated in relatively
few studies (Barrett et al., 1987; Galizio, 1979;
Hackenberg & Joker, 1994; Okouchi, 2002).
Galizio conducted the classic study in this area.
Participants were exposed to one of three
multiple-schedule loss-avoidance contingencies,
in which they were required to respond once
every 10, 30 or 60 s to avoid losing 5 from an
initial $2 or a fourth no loss condition, in
which participants did not lose money regard-
less of responding. In Experiment 3 of the study,
participants were exposed to accurate schedule
instructions in the presence of an orange light,
and inaccurate instructions in the presence of a
purple light, across three phases. In the first
phase, accurate instructions describing the
three loss-avoidance contingencies were pre-
sented in the presence of the orange light but a
no loss contingency was in place in the
presence of the purple light, regardless of the
instructions presented. In the second phase,
participants were exposed to a response- loss
contingency in the presence of the purple light.
The final phase was the same as the first phase.
When instructions were inaccurate and in-
struction-following was not punished (i.e.,
during the purple light in the first phase),
participants followed the presented instructions
in the presence of both the orange and purple
lights. In Phase 2, however, instruction-following
decreased markedly in the presence of the
purple light when the response-loss contingency
was in place. In the final stage, instruction-
following remained at low levels in the presence
of the purple light. Thus, the orange and purple
light exercised stimulus control over instruction-
following.
In Experiment 1 of the current study, it was
demonstrated that derived instruction-following
is highly generative in that participants reliably
responded in accordance with novel instruc-
tions. Furthermore, their responses to novel
instructions were influenced by consequences
for following previous instructions. In Experi-
ment 2, consequences for responding in accor-
dance with instructions were systematically
manipulated in the presence of two novel stimuli
(X1 and X2) in order to establish antecedent
control of derived instruction-following.
Method
Participants. Three undergraduates, two male
and one female, attending the National Univer-
sity of Ireland, Maynooth, volunteered to take
part in the study. As in Experiment 1, the
participants (numbered 7, 8, and 9) were
between 19 and 25 years old and were recruited
through personal contacts. None had previously
participated in psychological experiments and
all agreed not to discuss their participation with
anyone.
Apparatus. The apparatus employed for the
first five stages of Experiment 2 was the same as
that used for Experiment 1. As in Experiment 1,
participants attended for one 2-hr block per day.
One participant (7) needed a second block to
finish.
In the final stage of Experiment 2, two colored
shapes (a star [X1] and a triangle [X2]) were
included as stimuli (Fig. 2). A subset of 15 of the
24 novel stimulus sets employed in Experiment 1
were also employed (five sets of eight nonsense
syllables, five sets of eight arbitrary shapes and five
sets of eight random pictures; see Appendix 1).
Procedure. The relational pretraining and
testing for Before and After, and Same and
Different relations and the Test for Instructional
Control were identical to those in Experiment 1.
Following successful completion of these five
stages, participants were then exposed to a final
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
stage in which stimulus control of derived
instruction-following was trained and tested.
Stimulus control of derived instruction-following.
This final stage sought to establish antecedent
control of the derived instruction-following
observed in the Test for Instructional Control.
The only difference between this final stage
and the previous test was that either the
arbitrary stimulus X1 or X2 was presented in
the top center of the screen above the panel of
A, B and C stimuli and Same and Different
contextual cues.
Similar to the final stage of Experiment 1, a
four-key sequence constituted an instructed
response, and the contingencies for instructed
responding were systematically manipulated
across conditions. Experimental instructions
were identical to Experiment 1. In the final
stage of Experiment 2, the B and C stimuli were
chosen from a total of 15 novel stimulus sets (see
Table 3 for details).
Five conditions were presented in the follow-
ing sequence: Baseline, Training X1 as S
and X2 as S, Unreinforced Probes 1, Training
X1 as S and X2 as S and Unreinforced
Probes 2. Transition between these phases was
unsignaled.
1. Baseline. During this phase, the X1 and X2
stimuli were presented at the top of the screen,
but no differential consequences were arranged
for responding in accordance with instructions.
Three novel stimulus sets were employed during
this phase: one set of nonsense syllables, one set
of arbitrary shapes, and one set of clip art
pictures. Two blocks of 12 probes were pre-
sented. Each block included an equal number of
probes from each stimulus set, and an equal
number of probes that included Before and
After and Same and Different cues. For half the
probes, X1 was presented at the top of the
screen and, for the other half, X2 was presented.
These probes were presented in a random order
within blocks. No feedback was provided.
Table 3
Sequence of phases and mastery criteria in the final stage of Experiment 2
Phase Stimulus sets
Baseline 3 sets
Training X1 as S and X2 as S 3 sets
Unreinforced Probes 1 3 sets
Training X1 as S and X2 as S 3 sets
Unreinforced Probes 2 3 sets
77
2. Training X1 as S and X2 as S. As in
Baseline, three novel stimulus sets were em-
ployed (one set of nonsense syllables, one set of
shapes and one set of clip art) during this
condition. In this condition, however, differen-
tial consequences were presented for instructed
responses in the presence of the X1 and X2
stimuli. If X1 was presented and the participant
emitted the instructed four-key response, the
screen cleared, the word Correct appeared
and the spoken word Correct was presented by
the computer. Any other response was followed
by Wrong. Conversely, in the presence of X2,
instructed four-key responses were punished
(Wrong) and any other response was rein-
forced (Correct).
Each block of 12 trials included the same
balanced selection of stimulus presentations as
during Baseline. Participant 7 was exposed to
these trials in a random order within blocks.
However, due to the large number of trials to
which Participant 7 was exposed during this
phase before reaching criterion, Participants 8
and 9 were exposed to six X1 trials followed by
six X2 trials in a blocked trial procedure (Smeets
& Streifel, 1994). Following this initial exposure,
they were then exposed to blocks of 12 trials
presented randomly. For all three participants,
the mastery criterion was set at 11 reinforced
responses in a block.
3. Unreinforced Probes 1. Three further sets of
novel stimuli were employed in two 12-trial
probe blocks during this phase. Otherwise, this
phase was identical to Baseline. No feedback was
presented during this phase.
4. Training X1 as S and X2 as S. Again, three
novel stimulus sets were employed. As in the
second phase, differential consequences were
presented after each sequence response. How-
ever, in the current phase, contingencies were
reversed. Thus, if X1 was presented and the
participant emitted the instructed four-key
response, the word Wrong was presented.
No. of trials/probes Mastery Criterion
24 probes
Minimum 24 trials 11/12 of last block
24 probes
Minimum 24 trials 11/12 of last block
24 probes
78 DENIS OHORA et al.
Correct was presented following any other
response. Conversely, given X2, instructed four
key responses were reinforced (Correct) and
any other response was punished (Wrong). As
in the first intervention phase (X1 as S and X2
as S), Participant 7 received trials in random
order whereas Participants 8 and 9 received X1
trials first and then X2 trials within a block of
twelve.
5. Unreinforced Probes 2. During the final
phase, no feedback was presented and, similar
to the two previous unreinforced phases (i.e.,
Phases 1 and 3), participants were exposed to 24
probes from three novel stimulus sets.
Results and Discussion
Participants performances on the first five
stages are summarized in Table 4. All partic-
ipants achieved the mastery criterion within
three exposures to the Test for Instructional
Control and two did so on their first attempt.
Participant 7 was reexposed to all stages of
pretraining and testing after leaving the experi-
ment on the previous day.
Stimulus control of derived instruction-fol-
lowing. Figure 4 shows individual participants
performances in the final conditions in which
differential consequences were arranged for
derived instruction-following in the presence of
X1 and X2. For all three participants, histories
of differential consequences for responding in
accordance with instructions in the presence of
particular arbitrary stimuli reliably controlled
performance on subsequent probe phases without
feedback in the presence of novel stimulus sets.
1. Baseline. For all three participants, the
number of instructed responses recorded was
Numbers of training trials and numbers of correct (per received) testing trials for participants in the first
five stages of Experiment 2.
Before/After Before/After
Pretraining Test
P7 130 29/32
32/32
16 31/32
P8 81 31/32
32/32
P9 142 30/32
Note. Participant 7 was reexposed to all stages because she left the experiment and returned on a subsequent day. An
asterisk denotes responding that satisfied the mastery criterion.
high given both X1 and X2. An identical
number of instructed responses was recorded
in the presence of X1 and X2 during the 12
probe blocks.
2. Training X1 as S and X2 as S. Initially,
presentation of S1 and S2 did not differentially
affect the probability of instruction-following by
Participant 7. She was exposed to almost 100
trials before her performance satisfied criterion.
Postexperimental interviews suggested that
random presentation of trials in the presence
of X1 and X2 may have inhibited control by
these stimuli. Thus, Participants 8 and 9 were
exposed first to six X1 trials and then to six X2
trials, followed by blocks of 12 randomly ordered
trials until they met criterion. Both participants
demonstrated control by the antecedent stimuli
within 12 trials, following instructions in the
presence of X1 but not in the presence of X2.
Participant 8 was exposed to three additional
blocks of 12 trials due to a software error.
3. Unreinforced Probes 1. During Unrein-
forced Probes 1, participants reliably produced
more instructed responses in the presence of X1
than in the presence of X2.
4. Training X1 as S and X2 as S. Responses
for all participants reversed in the presence of
the X1 and X2 with respect to Unreinforced
Probes 1. Within 12 trials, all three participants
followed instructions in the presence of X2 but
not in the presence of X1.
5. Unreinforced Probes 2. The X1 and X2
stimuli maintained the control of instructed
responding established in the previous phase,
with all participants reliably producing in-
structed responses in the presence of X2 and
not producing instructed responses in the
presence of X1.
Table 4
Same/Different Same/Different Test for Instructional
Pretraining Test Control
16 15/16 21/24
8 15/16 23/24
16 16/16 16/24
15/16 19/24
21/24
16 16/16 22/24
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS 79

Fig. 4. Number of instructed responses in consecutive blocks of 12 probes in the presence of both X stimuli for all three
participants in the final stage of Experiment 2. Black shapes denote responses in the presence of X1, white shapes responses
in the presence of X2. Circles denote responses during Baseline, diamonds during the Training X1 as S and X2 as S phase
and triangles during the Training X1 as S and X2 as S phase. Squares denote unreinforced probes.

One limitation of Experiment 1 was that
consequential control was observed across
phases. In the final stage of Experiment 2,
however, reinforcement was provided for re-
sponding in accordance with instructions in the
presence of one arbitrary stimulus, and, in the
presence of a second arbitrary stimulus, rein-
forcement was provided for responding in any
way other than in accordance with instructions.
By providing different histories of reinforce-
ment or punishment for instruction-following in
the presence of antecedent stimuli, consequen-
tial control was demonstrated within phases.
It is worth noting that, on two occasions,
participants spontaneously reversed prior to
contacting differential consequences (Partici-
pant 7 in the presence of X1 in Phase 4 and
Participant 9 in the presence of X2 in Phase 2).
It is not clear why these reversals occurred, but
we provide tentative suggestions to stimulate
future research. In the case of Participant 7, the
change in instructional stimulus sets may have
set the occasion for exploration. In the case of
Participant 9, the presentation of six consecutive
X1 trials at the beginning of Phase 2 may have
set the occasion for exploration in the presence
of X2. That said, these features of the experi-
mental paradigm (i.e., switching sets and
presenting blocks of X1 and X2 trials) were
not sufficient in themselves to explain the
observed performance. Rather, these features
may have interacted with instructional control
to produce these unusual responses.
General Discussion
The current study reported two experiments in
which participants were trained to respond in
accordance with novel networks of derived
relations, an example of derived instruction-
following. These performances were then ex-
posed to differential consequences to examine if
it was possible to bring the derived instruction-
following performance under antecedent and
consequential control, findings previously dem-
onstrated with instructions composed of known
words (Barrett et al., 1987, DeGrandpre & Buskist,
1991; Galizio, 1979; Newman, Buffington, &
Hemmes, 1994; Newman, Hemmes, Buffington,
& Andrepoulos, 1994). In Experiment 1, for all
80 DENIS OHORA et al.
five participants that responded in accordance
with a network of Same/Different and Before/
After relations, responding in accordance with
novel derived relational networks proved sensitive
to differential consequences. In Experiment 2,
antecedent control was established over the
derived relational performances of all three
participants. These findings demonstrate that
contingencies for following instructions can be
isolated and manipulated separately from contin-
gencies for understanding instructions under
experimental conditions, once understanding
has been established.
Experiment 2 in the current study bolsters the
limited literature on antecedent control of
generalized instruction-following. Galizio
(1979) and Barrett et al. (1987) previously
examined antecedent control of instruction-
following, but such research has been rare in
the behavior-analytic literature. In addition,
consequential control of generalized instruc-
tion-following corresponds to what Zettle and
Hayes (1982) define as pliance, a form of rule-
governed behavior wherein rule-following oc-
curs because reinforcement is provided for
following rules regardless of the accuracy of
any descriptive relationship between the rules
and the environment. The antecedent control of
instruction-following demonstrated in Experi-
ment 2 arguably provides an experimental
analog of pliance and counterpliance in the
presence of particular types of social contact. For
example, in the case of some young teenagers,
the presence of authority figures such as parents
might function as an SD that, acting in accor-
dance with particular classes of rules, will be
reinforced and the breaking of those rules
punished, while the presence of members of
ones peer group might function as an SD that,
following those same rules, will be punished and
the breaking of those rules reinforced. Of
course, even in the latter case the behavior in
question might be argued to be a form of
pliance, especially if it is conforming with
previously provided instructions concerning
the importance of breaking conventional socie-
tal rules. In any case, research in this area could
be important given that the restricted and
insensitive behavioral repertoires that result
when an individual shows relatively high levels
of pliance have been implicated in RFT expla-
nations of psychological disorder (e.g., Hayes,
2005; McAuliffe, Hughes, & Barnes-Holmes, in
press; Plumb, Stewart, Dahl, & Lundgren, 2009).
The current study demonstrates that derived
instruction-following is sensitive to direct con-
tingency control. It may be tempting to
conclude, therefore, that the instruction-follow-
ing was verbal, at least in the RFT sense of the
concept of verbal, but the direct contingency
control was nonverbal. From the perspective of
RFT, however, such a conclusion would be
somewhat simplistic. A stimulus is defined as
verbal in RFT if it participates in a relational
frame, even if that stimulus also possess
functions that have been acquired via direct
contingencies (see Barnes-Holmes et al., 2000,
p. 73, and Hughes, Barnes-Holmes, & Vahey,
2012, pp. 3233, for detailed discussions). To
appreciate this subtle point, imagine that the
two antecedent stimuli that were used in
Experiment 2 of the current study were
employed in training and testing procedures
that established two 3-member equivalence
classes (X1-Y1-Z1 and X2-Y2-Z2). If the X1
stimulus had been used as an antecedent to
predict reinforcement and X2 had been used to
predict punishment for instruction-following, it
is possible that the Y and Z stimuli from class 1
would acquire, via derived transfer, discrimina-
tive-like functions for obeying the derived rules,
whereas the Y and Z stimuli from class 2 would
control disobedience. In this case, although the
two X stimuli acquired their discriminative
functions via direct reinforcement, they were
subsequently shown to be verbal in the sense
that they also participated in equivalence
relations with stimuli that acquired their behav-
ioral control functions via derived relational
responding.
Although the foregoing experimental demon-
stration remains to be done, it serves to highlight
an important pointthat it is possible for derived
instruction-following, a complex form of verbal
behavior itself, to come under the control of
verbal stimuli. That is, there may be situations in
which we understand instructions, but we do not
follow them, not because of direct experience
with consequences for following instructions, but
due to derived relational responding above and
beyond understanding the rule itself. For exam-
ple, whether we follow the advice given to us by
an authority figure in a situation might be
influenced by more overarching rules about
the need to be an independent-minded person.
Being an independent-minded person likely
involves a variety of verbal behaviors including
networks of derived relations. Indeed, it seems
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS
likely that many authority figures are established
as such through instructional control (e.g., Ok,
in my absence, Im appointing Paul as the
Head) and not through direct reinforcement
of instruction-following in their presence. Finally,
it is worth noting that the current procedures
provide a possible framework for behavioral
investigation of source credibility effects found in
the social psychological literature (e.g., Hovland
& Weiss, 1951).
One criticism of the current study might be
that the participants were verbally sophisticated
human adults and thus the current model
simply tapped into previously existing verbal
repertoires; we did not establish instructional
control in whole cloth in these participants. A
recent study (Tarbox, Zuckerman, Bishop,
Olive, & OHora, 2011), provided a first
demonstration of such behavior. Participants
with limited verbal repertoires learned to
produce simple behaviors conditional on the
presence of objects when the conditionality was
prescribed in a simple instruction (e.g., Clap if
this is a carrot). After learning the role of the
If stimulus in the context of particular sets of
instructions, such that they could produce
particular actions with respect to particular
stimuli, participants were able to produce novel
actions in the presence of novel stimuli pre-
scribed by new instructions. However, even
these patterns of responding were likely depen-
dent on the participants prior behavioral
histories. Nevertheless, this work arguably
brings us closer to the goal of developing
instructional control where it is absent. Further
research is required in this area to identify
features of training paradigms that facilitate
rapid acquisition of instructional control and
flexible application of instructional control in
appropriate circumstances.
References
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cullinan, V.
(2000). Relational frame theory and Skinners Verbal
Behavior: A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23,
6984.
Barnes-Holmes, D., OHora, D., Roche, B., Hayes, S. C.,
Bissett, S. C., & Lyddy, F. (2001). Understanding and
verbal regulation. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, &
B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian
account of human language and cognition (pp. 103117).
New York: Plenum.
81
Barrett, D. M., Deitz, S. M., Gaydos, G. R., & Quinn, P. C.
(1987). The effects of programmed contingencies and
social conditions on response stereotypy with human
subjects. The Psychological Record, 37, 489505.
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, 233248.
Cerutti, D. T. (1989). Discrimination theory of rule-
governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 51, 259276. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.51-259
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993).
PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for
designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research
Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25, 257271.
DeGrandpre, R. J., & Buskist, W. F. (1991). Effects of
accuracy of instructions on human behavior: Corre-
spondence with reinforcement contingencies matters.
The Psychological Record, 41, 371384.
Dermer, M. L., & Rodgers, J. G. (1997). Schedule control
over following instructions comprised of novel combi-
nations of verbal stimuli. The Psychological Record, 47,
243260.
Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency shaped and rule governed
behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoid-
ance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31,
5370. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.31-53
Hackenberg, T. D., & Joker, V. R. (1994). Instructional
versus schedule control of humans choices in situations
of diminishing returns. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 62, 367383.
Hayes, L. J., Thompson, S., & Hayes, S. C. (1989). Stimulus
equivalence and rule following. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 52, 275291. doi: 10.1901/
jeab.1989.52-275
Hayes, S. C. (2005). Stability and change in Cognitive
Behavior Therapy: Considering the implications of
ACT and RFT. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-
Behavior Therapy, 23, 2, 131151. doi: 10.1007/s10942-
005-0007-9
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. T. (2001).
Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of
Human Language and Cognition. New York: Plenum.
Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E.
(1986). Instructions, multiple schedules, and extinc-
tion: Distinguishing rule governed from schedule
controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 46, 137147.
Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the
listener as a basis for rule governance. In S. C. Hayes
(Ed.), Rule governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and
instructional control (pp. 153190). New York: Plenum
Press.
Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming
and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185241. doi: 10.1901/
jeab.1996.65-185
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source
credibility on communication effectiveness. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635650.
Hughes, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Vahey, N. (2012).
Holding on to our functional roots when exploring
new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit
cognition research. Journal of Contextual Behavioral
Science, 1, 1738.
82 DENIS OHORA et al.
Kaufman, A., Baron, A., & Kopp, R. E. (1966). Some effects
of instructions on human operant behavior. Psychonomic
Monograph Supplements, 1, 243250.
Leander, J. D., Lippman, L. G., & Meyer, M. M. (1968). Fixed
interval performance as related to instructions and
subjects verbalizations of the reinforcement contingen-
cy. The Psychological Record, 18, 469474.
McAuliffe, D., Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (in press).
The dark side of rule-governed behavior: An experi-
mental analysis of problematic rule-following in an
adolescent population with depressive symptomatology.
Behavior Modification.
Michael, J. (1980). The discriminative stimulus or Sd. The
Behavior Analyst, 3, 4749.
Newman, B., Buffington, D. M., & Hemmes, N. S. (1994).
The effects of schedules of reinforcement on instruction
following. The Psychological Record, 45, 463476.
Newman, B., Hemmes, N. S., Buffington, D. M., &
Andrepoulos, S. (1994). The effects of schedules of
reinforcement on instruction-following in human sub-
jects with verbal and nonverbal stimuli. The Analysis of
Verbal Behavior, 12, 3141.
OHora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M.
(2004). Derived relational networks as novel instruc-
tions: A possible model of generative verbal control. The
Psychological Record, 54, 437460.
Okouchi, H. (1999). Instructions as discriminative stimuli.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 205
214. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.72-205
Okouchi, H. (2002). Instructions as discriminative stimuli
(2): A within-subject examination of the effect of
differential reinforcement on establishing novel instruc-
tional control. Japanese Psychological Research, 44, 234
240. doi: 10.1111/1468-5884.t01-1-00025
Parrot, L. J. (1987). Rule-governed behavior: An implicit
analysis of reference. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.),
B.F. Skinner: Consensus and Controversy (pp. 265282).
New York: Falmer Press.
Plumb, J. C., Stewart, I., Dahl, J., & Lundgren, T. (2009). In
search of meaning: values in modern clinical behavior
analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 85103.
Schoenfeld, W. N., & Cumming, W. W. (1963). Behavior and
perception. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a
science (pp. 213252). New York: Plenum.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equivalen-
ces. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 513.
Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behavior: A
research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination
versus matching to sample: An expansion of the testing
paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
37, 522. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1982.37-5
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A
theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smeets, P. M., & Striefel, S. (1994). A revised blocked-
trial procedure for establishing arbitrary matching
in children. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 47B, 241261.
Tarbox, J., Tarbox, R. S., & OHora, D. (2009). Nonrela-
tional and relational instructional control. In
R. A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived
relational responding: Applications for learners with autism
and other developmental disabilities (pp. 111127). Oak-
land, CA: New Harbinger.
Tarbox, J., Zuckerman, C. K., Bishop, M. R., Olive, M. L., &
OHora, D. P. (2011). Rule-Governed Behavior: Teach-
ing a preliminary repertoire of rule-following to children
with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 115.
Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule governed behavior:
A potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behav-
ioral therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive
behavioral research and therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 73118). New
York: Academic Press.
Received: December 21, 2013
Final Acceptance: May 20, 2014
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS 83

Appendix
Stimulus sets employed in consequential and antecedent control phases of Experiments 1 and 2. All
sets were used in Experiment 1, but only sets 1 to 5 of each type were employed in Experiment 2.

Nonsense syllables

Stimulus set 1 MUJ CIX HIN NAL

BIM LEM JOL PUV
Stimulus set 2 VOB YIL KED MUV
REL SEM JAL NIN
Stimulus set 3 KOL TIV FUD WAF
TIX PEM ZAD RES
Stimulus set 4 GUK YOV WEP FID
SEB ZUG HAR GAW
Stimulus set 5 BOJ NUR WUL GOV
LIF YAL SUG ZEM
Stimulus set 6 FAL ROF PID ZUP
DAL HIB TUV VIG
Stimulus set 7 BOL VOP RUV JIK
NEB KAG CUX TOK
Stimulus set 8 FIP WIX LON POB
GOY SIB YUV BOC

Arbitrary shapes

Stimulus set 1

Stimulus set 2

Stimulus set 3

Stimulus set 4

(Continued)
84 DENIS OHORA et al.

Stimulus set 5

Stimulus set 6

Stimulus set 7

Stimulus set 8

Clip art themes

Stimulus set 1

Stimulus set 2

Stimulus set 3

Stimulus set 4

(Continued)
 UNDERSTANDING AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS 85

Stimulus set 5

Stimulus set 6

Stimulus set 7

Stimulus set 8