Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
ASO 24
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

ASO 24

575
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
575
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Chapter 24 A Theory of Rule Governed Behavior ANSWERS 48. The cause of poor self-management: the myth vs. the truth a. What is the myth? ANSWER: “Poor self-management occurs because immediate outcomes control our behavior better than delayed outcomes do.” b. In your own expert opinion, why is this wrong? What is the REAL cause of poor selfmanagement? ANSWER: It isn’t the delay at which an outcome will occur that leads to the failure of a rule to control our behavior, but it is the rule’s description of outcomes that are too small or too improbable that leads to that rule’s inability to control behavior. (So in other words, you simply have to increase the size or probability of an outcome while keeping the delay the same in order to increase its effectiveness.) c. Please provide an everyday example of a rule with a delayed outcome that fails to control behavior. Then explain how increasing the size or probability of the outcome (while keeping the delay the same) can increase the effectiveness of that rule. ANSWER: Let’s talk about buckling up your seat-belt. Let the rule be that if you are stopped by a police officer and you are not wearing your seat-belt, you will receive ticket and a fine. Now, normally, you are the kind of person that hates the restrictiveness of a seatbelt, so you don’t often wear it. You know that the probability of a police officer stopping you is pretty low and because that scenario is so rare, you fail to wear your seatbelt. What we have just described is a low-probability outcome which does not control your behavior. Now, let’s suppose that it is Memorial Day weekend, the weekend for travelers. Because there are so many cars out on the road, there are also a lot more police officers as well. For these three days, the probability of being seen driving without a seatbelt on by an officer has significantly increased. As a result, you forgo the discomfort of the seatbelt and decide to wear it while driving. Here we can see that the increase in the probability of an aversive outcome has caused the rule to increase in effectiveness to where it now controls your behavior.