A reply to behavior analysts writing about rules and rule-governed behavior.

Schlinger (1990) is a short, sharp reply to other writers on rules.

The paper says we should stop calling every verbal cue a "rule."

Instead, save the word for statements that truly spell out the if-then payoff.

Only those words that change the actual contingency count as rules.

The author found confusion in the field.

People were labeling any spoken prompt a rule, even when it only hinted.

The fix: reserve "rule" for verbal stimuli that function like a written contract.

If the words do not alter the payoff, call them something else.

Mace et al. (1990) tested the idea with preschool kids.

They showed that rules with clear deadlines controlled play, while vague rules did not.

That lab result lines up with D’s call for contingency-specifying language.

Giallo et al. (2006) ran a similar test with adults at slot machines.

Faulty rules pushed players toward risky bets; corrected rules pulled them back.

Again, only the statements that spelled out the real odds changed behavior.

Together, these studies turn D’s definition into data.

When you write a BIP, ask: does this sentence spell out the payoff?

If it does, you have a rule; if it doesn’t, you have a hint.

Use deadlines, clear if-thens, and plain payoff talk.

Your clients will hear the contingency, not just the noise.