↓ Skip to main content

Antecedent and consequential control of derived instruction‐following

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antecedent and consequential control of derived instruction‐following
Published in
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/jeab.95
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denis O'Hora, Dermot Barnes‐Holmes, Ian Stewart

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 58%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2014.
All research outputs
#14,566,885
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
#412
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,599
of 232,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.