A recent systematic review has highlighted that the terms “pliance,” “tracking,” and “augmenting” have rarely been used as the basis for conducting systematic experimental-analytic research since their conception in 1982, despite their theoretical centrality to the study of rule-governed behavior and their presumed impact on psychological suffering. Given that some time has passed since the review article, it may be useful to reflect again upon their place within the literature on the experimental analysis of human behavior, and relational frame theory in particular. As such, the current article constitutes a “position piece” rather than another formal systematic review. In reviewing (informally) the literature since the systematic review, the recent emergence of psychometric research involving these concepts could be seen as reinforcing the original conclusions, in that researchers are recognizing that pliance, tracking, and augmenting may be of limited value in the experimental analysis of human behavior. Instead, the concept of rule-governed behavior itself, as well as the subcategories of pliance, tracking, and augmenting, should be considered middle-level terms, which lack the relative precision of more technical terms within the literature on relational frame theory.

自从1982年提出概念以来，尽管“顺从”，“跟踪”和“增强”一词在理论上处于中心地位，但自从1982年提出概念以来，它们很少被用作进行系统的实验分析研究的基础。行为及其对心理痛苦的推测影响。鉴于自这篇评论文章以来已经过去了一段时间，重新思考它们在文献中关于人类行为，尤其是关系框架理论的实验分析中的地位可能是有用的。因此，当前的文章构成了一个“定位部分”，而不是另一个正式的系统评价。自系统回顾以来，在（非正式地）回顾文献时，最近涉及这些概念的心理测量研究的出现可以看作是对原始结论的强化，因为研究人员已经认识到，在人类行为的实验分析中，柔顺，追踪和增强可能具有有限的价值。相反，应将规则控制的行为本身的概念以及顺从性，跟踪性和增强性子类别视为中级术语，这些术语在关系框架理论的文献中缺乏更多技术术语的相对精度。