Rule-following and human operant responding: Conceptual and methodological considerations.

McIntire et al. (1987) wrote a how-to guide. They asked: can we test rule-following in real time? Their answer: yes, with a microcomputer. The computer flashes a rule like “press left when the light is red.”

Each time the person presses, the screen asks, “Did you follow the rule?” If the answer matches the press, the person earns points. The setup turns private rule-following into visible, countable behavior.

The paper gives no numbers. It is a recipe, not a report. The authors show the logic: reinforce the match between what people say they will do and what they actually do.

They argue this method lets us see rule-control separate from simple reinforcement history.

Lord et al. (1986) tried the recipe with kids. They taught children to state a rule, then act on it, then praised the match. Months later the kids still followed their own rules, even when praise came only sometimes. The 1986 study extends the 1987 idea into real classrooms.

Lloyd (2002) looked back at 15 years of studies like these. The review says correspondence training faded after 1992. It urges researchers to bring it back with newer tech and wider questions. The 1987 paper sits inside that call as an early blueprint.

O'mara (1991) offers a different tool—graph theory—for another puzzle (stimulus equivalence). Both papers share the same spirit: fix method problems before we run the study.

If you want to teach self-management, start by reinforcing the talk-action match. Ask the client to state a rule, then immediately check if behavior lines up. Use a tablet or phone to ping the check-in. Reinforce only when words and deeds agree. Over time, thin the rewards and let the rule itself take control. This is the heart of correspondence training, ready for Monday morning.