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.