ABSTRACT
The rule-governed/contingency-shaped dichotomy was constructed as a means of accounting for innumerable instances of behavior that did not appear to have been acquired by way of direct exposure to contingencies of reinforcement. In all of these instances the conditions setting the occasions for behaviors were constituted of verbal stimuli. Despite the enormous utility of the concept of rule governance, the dichotomy remains a source of difficulty because there is no basis in behavior analytic theory on which to propose a genuine distinction between rule-governed and contingency-shaped behavior. From a strict behavior analytic standpoint the dichotomy is spurious.
