#behaviourism 202

[behaviouristatplay]

Do you really mean to say that you suppose covert behaviours exist so that contingencies could be described? That would imply that species which have evolved not needing to describe their contingencies to other members of their species (eg fish) would not not have any need to covertly behave at all, ie it would not be advantageous and therefore not selected for. So do you really suppose that fish do not feel pain, or have I misunderstood you? What about covert behaviour as precurrent behaviour?

Hi again

Not exactly.  The very basic survival value of covert behaviours are as the side effects of the consequences in our environment.  It was the experiences of pleasure or satisfaction we kept seeking through our behaviours while avoiding the things that caused us pain discomfort that helped us survive; pleasure and satisfaction coming from very basic necessities of live.  But I think covert behaviours’ survival values have evolved further by the fact that we can describe them; not that they existed so that we can describe them.  Because of that, we as humans are able to survive longer and with considerably less pain or consequences that shave away years of living.  Otherwise we would all have to go through the same trial and error of the things that potentially threaten our life and more of us wouldn’t make it. 

I’m not sure if fish experience pain (or pleasure) in the way we talk about pain. They must have life-sustaining signals and experiences that keep the species alive. In comparison to fish, however we have much more complex behaviour chains and an enriched environment to survive in because of our ability to tell stories, share experiences and provide rules for living.   

*As an aside, I’m also not so quick to assume fish don’t have their own form of verbal behaviour.  Who knows if and in what form it exists or how sophisticated it really is? 

A lot of what we still do comes down to accessing pleasure while avoiding pain and discomfort.  Our primary reinforcers can be categorized as one or the other.  Through hundreds of years of evolution and conditioning we have a larger repertoire and an enriched environment that provides us with those experiences, even when we don’t need them to survive - e.g., eating a doughnut brings be much pleasure but I don’t need doughnuts to survive. 

Now your second question…

Precurrent behaviours are those that we perform that make some other response (and its reinforcer) more effective (Polson & Parsons, 1994).   An example is when asked, “What’s for lunch?” we look at the menu to find out.  If we can successfully label what we see, we can then answer the question.  I suspect a lot of that labeling occurs covertly - i.e., privately within the person. 

When we take time to “find the answer”, to problem solve or “talk our way through” a series of steps we are engaging in precurrent behaviour.  There is a lot of verbal behaviour involved in those responses, some of which may occur as covert behaviour.  How many times have we counted the number of people coming over for dinner in our mind to then set the correct number of settings at the table?   Ever recite a phone number over and over in your head while you look for a place to write it down?  Precurrent and covert behaviour all at once. 

And they say behaviourism was too simple…

Hope this answers your questions.  If nothing else, it got my verbal (and precurrent) behaviour going.    

Cheers and R+

~ Tricia-Lee

References:

Polson, D.A. & Parsons, J.A.  (1994).  Precurrent contingencies: Behavior reinforced by altering the reinforcement probability for other behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61(3), 427-439. 

[behaviouristatplay]

If some covert behaviours are just side effects of behaviour and contingencies of reinforcement and punishment, then why would the potential for then evolve at all/ what evolutionary advantage would they give?

Well hey there anonymous and thanks for the thought-provoking question.  My answer probably won’t do the research and philosophy on this subject any justice but I am also going to try to keep things fairly simple for my non-behaviour analytic readers.

First a primer: covert behaviours are those that occur within the person. They are our sensations, emotions, thoughts.  They are private and only experienced by the person.  They cannot be observed by an outsider; though some medical tools do allow for measurement and monitoring.   

While covert behaviours cannot be seen, they are conceptualized by radical behaviourists as operating under the same principles of our overt behaviours - i.e., the behaviours that can be observed and measured.  For more details, please see my previous post on covert behaviours. 

Seeing covert behaviours as “just side effects” of other behaviours and consequences seems to indicate they have less value.  The sensations and emotions we experience become part of the learning - either conditioned with consequences or they become the motivation/antecedent event for the next behaviour.  When we started to ‘talk’ about these sensations and emotions, we gave ‘thought’ to them  (i.e., verbal behaviours). We were then able to share with others what we had learned. Others learned from our verbal behaviours what to do (i.e., to gain access to reinforcers) and what not to do (i.e., avoid punishers).  

Imagine the first person to discover that fire - while it produced heat and cooked food - burns the skin and that the burn hurts a lot. The next generation learned through the sharing of experiences that fire burns and can hurt.  In the presence of fire now come thoughts of “hurt” “pain” (or however it was described to them in the language/vocalizations/gestures of the time).  Their behaviour changes in order to avoid possibly being burned and experiencing the same fate.

Now imagine the first foragers learning which green leafy substance is a tasty and energy sustaining piece of food versus those that taste awful and cause stomach issues. In order to teach others what they have learned, they would have to note the sensations experienced with certain features of leaf; features requiring some kind of label.  They tell others what to bring back and what to leave on the ground.  

Due to today’s modern technologies and conveniences, it is hard to see the survival factor in many of our behaviours - whether overt or covert.  Yet, what we continue to do over time is seek out positive experiences and avoid negative ones.  We have so many things in our environment that bring us joy and pleasure outside of our basic reinforcers like food, heat, shelter etc.  They entertain us. They occupy our time (especially since we have to do very little to survive at this point). They allow us to be social - to give and to receive.  At the same time, we engage in plenty of behaviours that successfully avoid aversive consequences thanks to the rules handed down by our ancestors.  These rules and our environment have evolved over time because of the unfortunate experience of others before us. One only has to look at road signs and traffic control methods to see how we have learned to make a city move more efficiently yet safely at the same time.

Even though covert behaviours can be considered “side effects” or after thoughts from our other behaviours, they still play a role in our survival and well-being. In the telling of our experiences, we end up shaping the rules others can follow.  

[behaviouristatplay]

A science of behavior is especially vulnerable to the charge of simplification because it is hard to believe that a fairly simple principle can have vast consequences in our lives. ... ...we find it much more difficult to believe that contingencies of reinforcement can really be the roots of wars, say, or - at the other extreme - of art, music and literature.

B.F. Skinner (from About Behaviorism, p. 254)

One of the criticisms of behaviourism is that it is just too simple to explain complex behaviours such as learning a language, regulating our emotions, critical thinking and problem solving.  We pride ourselves on our superior abilities and intelligence compared to other species. And we certainly don’t want our essence to be reduced to a bunch of three- or four-term contingencies.

Our complexity, our uniqueness, our very being is made up of millions of contingencies - established in part by our genetic endowments, our social circumstances and the environments we live, work and play in.  No two people can possibly have been exposed to the exact same contingencies, but what we do know is that people keep doing what works for them and therefore reinforcement is to be found somewhere.  We may never be able to go back far enough in one’s learning history to piece together every little thing we do and why, but the principles of reinforcement have been the same.   

[behaviouristatplay]

What do you make of the distinctions between molecular and molar behaviourisms? Where does the majority of the behaviour-analytic community stand?

Hello Anonymous and thanks for the question - keeping me on my toes this summer!

Before I weigh in, a little primer on the two definitions there:

Molecular view on behaviour - each behaviour is itself a discrete unit to be analyzed in terms of its occurrence and rate of response.  It is as if we press pause on life to analyze the behaviour and what’s happening at that moment.

Molar views on behaviour - behaviour is part of a larger temporal continuum and influenced by the collection of events (or their absence) taking up space and time. 

Practicing behaviour analysts are good at a molecular analysis.  When we want to know the function or purpose for a behaviour we look to the immediate antecedents and consequences the moment the behaviour occurred.  We do this analysis over and over again in order to then plan for behaviour change. There are of course limitations to this especially when we get into more complex behaviours or behaviours that are low in frequency.  A molecular view does little to explain the variations in our behaviour repertoires and about the choices we make and when.  We also don’t get to see if there is a time/space pattern between our behaviours.

I know for me, an increased understanding in satiation and deprivation (motivating operations) and matching law lends itself to a more molar view on behaviour.  Events occurring earlier in the day make other events more or less reinforcing (or aversive).  Therefore, we have to expand our analysis to include and measure these events.  Also, a molar analysis on behaviour can ask, when not engaged in [target behaviour] what else is the person doing/getting? This is one of the reasons why I sometimes do a contingency space analysis as part of my functional behaviour assessments.  Here, I track all events and their consequences to see the probability not only of behaviour-consequence relationships (desired and undesired) but the consequence-behaviour relationships as well.  This can be especially telling when I’m not always around to catch that molecular moment.

We can’t ignore nor take away from the influence a molecular view on behaviour has contributed to our understanding of behaviour. This continues to be the roots of behaviour analysis.  That larger more molar view is perhaps where we are taking behaviour analysis next.  We need both if we are going to truly understand behaviour.     

Resources:

Baum, W.M.  (2002).  From molecular to molar: A paradigm shift in behavior analysis.  Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78(1), 95-116.

Related posts:

Cereal choices

Today I go to school, tomorrow I won’t

More than just what you see

[behaviouristatplay]

Could you outline a behaviourist account of "co-vert behaviour" please?

Sure I can Anonymous!

All of our behaviours are categorized as either overt or covert.  Overt behaviours are those that are observable by someone else.  Covert behaviours are that those that occur within a person’s skin. They are the thoughts, emotions and sensations we experience.  They cannot be seen or heard by an outside observer.  

An example:

I see my neighbour and think to myself, I should say “Hi.” (covert behaviour)

I wave and say, “Hi” (overt behaviour).

We know operant (i.e., the three-term contingency) and classical conditioning explain many of our overt behaviours; as demonstrated by hundreds of empirical studies that define and measure overt behaviours through a series of experiments. Since covert behaviours cannot be seen they are near impossible to explain empirically. However, radical behaviourists apply the same principles of operant and classical conditioning to give explanation to covert behaviours.  

What can occur is a covert behaviour accompanied with other overt behaviours which we have learned to discriminate and label as likely being representative of the covert behaviour.  Pain is often accompanied by certain bodily movements and facial expressions.  If I see someone wince, I typically assume they are in pain. Experiencing something funny is often accompanied by laughing. We typically relate laughing as, “something is funny” and confirm the source.  We may never be able to measure “funny” but we can measure laughing and relate to other behaviours from there.  

And then come relational frame theorists who work at experimenting with principles of behaviour to empirically validate covert behaviours. That’s a whole other wave of behaviour science requiring another post for me to go there (and likely not written by me as my knowledge is very basic and limited).

~Tricia-Lee

[behaviouristatplay]

LastTuesday my psychology teacher said that behaviourists hold that people are born "tabula rasa". I want to correct him, and I was wondering if you could direct me to some sources which I could show him, to do so. I've already got my copy of Skinner's 'About Behaviourism' out and bookmarked at a page where Skinner touches on this misconception but he only mentions it in passing, so I'd really appreciate it if you could direct me to a source which more explicitly shows this to be wrong. Thanks

Hello Anonymous and thanks for asking about resources relating to behaviourists’ views on the “tabula rasa” philosophy of people and behaviours. 

It’s an oft-held misnomer that behaviourists reject the notion of innate behaviours or that we ignore the role of genetics; taking an extreme nurture position in the good ‘ole ‘nature vs. nurture’ debate.  Perhaps staunch methodological behaviourists will lean more towards the nurture side of the debate, but B.F. Skinner and other radical behaviourists do try to settle somewhere in the middle; recognizing that behaviour is a result of the interaction between genetic endowment and conditioning (both respondent and operant). Perhaps your psychology teacher is referring to early behaviourist (i.e., Watson) views and not taking into account more radical behaviourist views.

While I cannot find a specific rebuttal to the “tabula rasa” claim, I think you’ll find sources where Skinner and other behaviourists since him have attempted to explain their position, noting such phenomena as Selection by Consequences, while discussing the phylogeny and ontogeny of behaviours.   

Charles Catania offers an in-depth overview and commentary on this position in his book, The Selection of Behavior.  

Skinner also talks about innate behaviours in the book, Science and Human Behavior.      

Meanwhile, a review of the nature vs. nurture debate and where Skinner’s work landed or was misunderstood is available here. 

Hope this helps get the dialogue going with your professor.  Sounds like a stimulating conversation could be had!

~Tricia-Lee

[behaviouristatplay]

Hey! Just found your blog, and love how you explain somewhat complex principles so easily! I have an exam pretty soon, and although I have searched alot and read Palmers article, I cant quite grasp the essence of "reminding" and "remembering" in regards to memory. Can you help me out? Would be forever in your debt! Keep up the good work :)

Hi Anonymous and thanks for the compliment.  

I admit I am not well read in the area of memory from a behaviour analytic viewpoint and your ask prompted me to check out Palmer’s articles.  So here’s my interpretation of his interpretation. Please remain skeptical as my interpretation is just that and may be very wrong, but here goes…

“Remembering” is a behaviour/response, and like all operant behaviours, they are evoked by an antecedent event (behaviourally speaking, the discriminative stimulus [Sd]).  Remember, all responses/behaviours have an antecedent and a consequence.  When we are asked, “What is 12 x 12?” (the antecedent) we reply with, “144″.  The response, “144″ is evoked by the question because in the past that response to that question was reinforced; likely a teacher giving feedback that the response was correct. People typically attribute the response as “remembering” what 12 x 12 is but that response could not have existed without operant conditioning.  We are not “remembering” but rather are responding as was reinforced before. 

Another example: When I “remember” how much of an ingredient to put into my baking, I am responding as per the complex chain of responses I have done hundreds of times before, evoked by the materials and the responses before it. 

Meanwhile, “reminding” is what the antecedent (SD) does.  It is the same as “evoking” or “stimulus control”. The post-it note on the door “reminding” us to take our lunch is really an example of stimulus control or prompt.  Upon hearing the beginning of a particular song we are “reminded” of the lyrics because in the past we sang them as a chain of responses; each word evoking the next one and so on.  When someone “reminds” us to turn off the lights they are actually requesting that we turn off the lights and we respond as we have learned to do.     

So I think in essence, “remembering” is operant behaviour and “reminding” is stimulus control of that behaviour.  Is this what you were left thinking?

~Tricia-Lee    

Reference:

Palmer, D.C.  (1991). A behavioral interpretation of memory. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.),Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 261-279). Reno, NV: Context Press.

[behaviouristatplay]

Why is it that verbal and non-verbal behaviours require distinction? What is different about behaviour maintained by consequences mediated by other animals and behaviour maintained by other sorts of reinforcers? (That is the difference between verbal and non-verbal behaviour under radical behaviourist definitions, right? :/).

Good question anonymous!  I’m not certain that verbal and non-verbal behaviours do require a distinction.  At least, there does not have to a distinction in order for me to analyze the situation.  After all, verbal behaviour is behaviour (Skinner, 1974) and its function exists within its relationship to the environment. In the case of verbal behaviour, the function can be found within the social environment - i.e., the verbal community.

A distinction for verbal behaviour may have been made to counter against mentalism when attempting to explain language, communication and socialization among humans.  As radical behaviourists, we are still countering against them. Verbal behaviour as a concept offers an explanation for the exchanges between people; exchanges that are often not thought of as “behaviour”.  Until B.F. Skinner coined the term, how people acquired language was largely thought to be within the brain or mind of the person.  I would say this is still an on-going debate! 

So we may need the distinction between verbal and non-verbal behaviours for scholarly or conversational purposes; however, in the on-going analysis of why people do what they do (or say), it’s still just behaviour.

~ Tricia-Lee

Reference:

Skinner, B.F. (1974).  About behaviorism.  New York, NY: Random House.      

Related posts:

Watching my language!    

The source of our reinforcement