Delayed rule following.
Tell the client the exact future cue, then give a simple bridge—note, gesture, or whisper—to keep the rule alive until that cue appears.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ley (2001) wrote a theory paper. The author asked why behavior analysts ignore the gap between giving a rule and the moment the rule must be used.
The paper borrowed ideas from prospective-memory research. It urged clinicians to study how people remember to act later.
What they found
The paper made no new data. It argued that delay is a hidden variable that can break rule following.
The author said we should test written notes, private rehearsal, and other cues that bridge the gap.
How this fits with other research
Older lab work already showed the power of bridging cues. Hansen et al. (1989) taught children unique mediating actions; the kids kept matching correctly after long delays. Snapper et al. (1969) saw rats nibble in a way that timed their next response. Both studies support the paper’s call for specific, observable reminders.
Later work extends the same theme. Perez et al. (2015) faded in longer and longer delays while kids waited for rewards. Their procedure is a live example of the cues the paper wants us to study.
Paglieri et al. (2015) and Green et al. (2019) sound like critics. They warn that motivation and context can mimic delay effects. These papers do not contradict Ley (2001); they simply remind us to measure motivation before we blame the delay itself.
Why it matters
You often tell clients what to do later: “When the bell rings, line up.” State the exact behavior and the exact cue. Then add a bridge—sticky note, picture, or quick self-talk—so the rule survives the wait. Test which bridges work best and you will turn a theory paper into real skill gains.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one delayed rule your client must follow, add a written or pictorial reminder at the client’s eye level, and record if the rule is followed faster.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although the elements of a fully stated rule (discriminative stimulus [S(D)], some behavior, and a consequence) can occur nearly contemporaneously with the statement of the rule, there is often a delay between the rule statement and the S(D). The effects of this delay on rule following have not been studied in behavior analysis, but they have been investigated in rule-like settings in the areas of prospective memory (remembering to do something in the future) and goal pursuit. Discriminative events for some behavior can be event based (a specific setting stimulus) or time based. The latter are more demanding with respect to intention following and show age-related deficits. Studies suggest that the specificity with which the components of a rule (termed intention) are stated has a substantial effect on intention following, with more detailed specifications increasing following. Reminders of an intention, too, are most effective when they refer specifically to both the behavior and its occasion. Covert review and written notes are two effective strategies for remembering everyday intentions, but people who use notes appear not to be able to switch quickly to covert review. By focusing on aspects of the setting and rule structure, research on prospective memory and goal pursuit expands the agenda for a more complete explanation of rule effects.
The Behavior analyst, 2001 · doi:10.1007/BF03392029