Understanding How Rule Clarity Affects Instruction Following

When we ask learners to forgo an immediate reward for a better outcome later, the words we choose matter. This research explores whether explicit, detailed rules outperform vague encouragement when competing against strong, immediate payoffs. For clinicians working with clients who have established habits—like avoiding difficult tasks or seeking instant comfort—these findings offer practical guidance on how to frame instructions more effectively.

What is the research question being asked and why does it matter?

The researchers asked: When a learner can get a small reward right away but a bigger reward later for following instructions, does the wording of the rule matter? Specifically, they wanted to know if an “implicit” rule (vague) versus an “explicit” rule (very clear) changes whether people follow instructions.

This matters because many clients already have strong habits that pay off immediately. Avoiding homework, staying on the phone, or refusing a hard task can feel good now, even if it causes bigger problems later. In those moments, we often use instructions, expectations, or “rules” to help the person make a better long-term choice. If clearer rules work better than vague ones, clinicians can adjust how they give directions to improve follow-through—without adding extra prompts or consequences.

It also matters because instruction following varies across learners. Some quickly follow rules; some do not, even when the rule is clear. Knowing this ahead of time helps you plan for variability instead of blaming the learner or assuming the plan “should work.”

What did the researchers do to answer that question?

The researchers ran four small, lab-style studies with college students. The task was a simple computer choice game with points.

First, everyone learned a strong habit: clicking the “house” picture earned +1 point each time, and clicking anything else lost −10 points immediately. This built a clear history where “house” was the safe, immediate win.

Then, in the key test phase, the screen gave trial-by-trial instructions like “Select the car” or “Select the chair.” If the person followed the instruction, they lost points right away (because it wasn’t the house). But they could earn a delayed bonus: for every instruction followed, they got +20 points later (shown at the end of a block). The best long-term total came from following instructions, even though it cost points in the moment.

Across studies, the main change was what “rule” was given before the test phase:

• Study 1: no general rule
• Study 2: a vague rule (“Following my instructions will be good for you in the future”)
• Studies 3 and 4: a detailed rule clearly stating that following instructions would lose 10 points now but earn 20 points later, leading to more points overall

The main outcome was simple: did people keep choosing the house (immediate payoff) or switch to following instructions (delayed payoff)?

Results were mixed. With no rule or the vague rule, almost everyone stuck with the house. With the explicit rule, about half the participants switched to instruction following—but not all did, and one person switched then switched back.

How you can use this in your day-to-day clinical practice

When you need a learner to choose a “better later” outcome over a “better now” outcome, don’t rely on vague encouragement. Statements like “This is good for you” or “It will help in the future” may not be enough when the immediate payoff is strong—escape, attention, access, comfort. If you’re going to use rules, make them concrete and specific so the learner knows what to do, when to do it, and what will happen both now and later.

An “explicit rule” means spelling out three parts: what situation this is for, what the person should do, and what the outcomes are for doing it versus not. For example: “When math starts, you can feel like stopping. If you do the first 3 problems, you won’t get a break right away, but after the 3rd one you get 2 minutes on the iPad.” This mirrors the study’s approach: acknowledge the short-term cost and name the delayed payoff. Don’t overtalk it, but make the tradeoff clear.

Build your rule to match the learner’s language level and real reinforcers. In the study, “points” were the reinforcer and the delay was short. In real life, delayed outcomes like “better grades” or “better health” are often too far away to compete. If you want to use explicit rules ethically, pair them with real, near-term outcomes the learner cares about, and ensure the learner has meaningful choice. If you can’t offer a real payoff soon, a clearer rule alone may not shift behavior.

Expect that explicit rules won’t work for every learner, even if you write them perfectly. In the study, some people ignored the explicit rule and kept choosing the immediate payoff. Clinically, this means “rule clarity” is one tool, not the whole plan. If the learner doesn’t shift with an explicit rule, adjust the environment, the task, the delay, the reinforcement size, or the teaching procedure—rather than repeating the same speech louder.

Watch for “switching back,” especially after early success. One participant followed instructions for a while, then returned to the old pattern despite the better long-term payoff. In practice, this can look like a client who starts a new routine for a week, then stops. Plan for this by adding maintenance supports: keep the delay to reinforcement short at first, thin slowly, and check if immediate costs are creeping up (harder tasks, less sleep, more stress). If you see backsliding, treat it as a signal to rebuild success, not as “noncompliance.”

Use this research to improve how you write caregiver and staff directions. If a parent plan says “Use reinforcement later” or “Encourage calm behavior,” that’s an implicit rule—easy to interpret in many ways. Instead, write clear if-then coaching that includes timing. For example: “If he hands you the break card, say ‘yes,’ start a 2-minute timer, and remove demands. If he screams, block access to breaks for 30 seconds, then prompt the card.” The study supports the idea that clearer rules can increase follow-through, even if it won’t be perfect for everyone.

Be careful about what this doesn’t tell you. These were small studies with college students in a computer task—not children in clinics, and not people with communication challenges. The delay was short and contingencies were clear. Don’t assume the same effect size in home or school settings where delayed outcomes are messy and competing reinforcers are stronger. Use the takeaway as a prompting and coaching improvement: make rules more explicit when you want long-term behavior, but still measure the learner’s behavior and adjust based on data and dignity.

Finally, treat rule-giving as a teaching strategy, not a control strategy. The goal isn’t obedience. The goal is helping the learner contact better outcomes with clear information, fair supports, and real choices. If the learner keeps choosing the immediate payoff, that’s useful assessment information about motivation, response effort, and reinforcement timing—and it should guide your next clinical decision.

Works Cited

Alonso-Vega, J., Fellingerová, V., Pereira, G.-L., Estal-Muñoz, V., & Akerø Hylland, A. (2025). Preliminary analysis of rule explicitness on instructional control in immediate and delayed contingencies. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 41, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-025-00216-y