Common Misconceptions in Radical Behaviorism

[theradicalbehaviorist-blog]

Size doesn’t matter

When I introduce people to behaviorism, most people grab onto the idea that behaviors have consequences, and that those consequences influence our future behavior. They get that if I punch my brother and I get punished, then I’ll probably be less likely to punch him again in the future. Most people are a bit surprise, but are still able to grasp the idea that some things may be reinforcing for one person but have no effect on someone else. But, they typically get a bit confused to learn this next part. Behavioral science contradicts our existing model of free-will in which we weigh the pros and cons and then engage in behaviors that have more pros then cons. It turns out, that it’s not the weight (or size) of the pros and cons that matters: timing is what matters. 

Let’s consider a person who has problems with binge eating fast-food. They know it’s a problem and have been trying unsuccessfully to stop.  Here’s a look at an ABC for their binge-eating behavior.  

Antecedent: drive by McDonald’s

Behavior: go through drive-thru and purchase a high-calorie meal

Consequence: enjoy delicious food, feel ashamed, gain weight, possible heart disease, etc...

Many people will view this person and say that if they keep going to McDonald’s they’re being “irrational.” I mean, sure it tastes good but then you feel ashamed, and it’s making you gain weight and you’ll probably die of heart disease or have to take blood pressure medication when you’re like 45. So it seems like the sum total of bad outcomes is far greater than the one good outcome of enjoying delicious food, right? Therefore the only logical outcome would be for the person to cease eating this food right away, right?  

In the free-will logical model of behavior, this person would seem quite sick: the size of the cons clearly outweighs the size of the pros here. But humans don’t actually function in this way. Size doesn’t matter: timing matters. Or put another way, what happens first, matters most. So that delicious taste in your mouth that happens the instant you bite into the burger and fries, that has a huge impact on behavior. The amazing insane deliciousness when I take my first sip of that frosty milk-shake, that has a huge impact on behavior. The feeling of shame that comes about 20 minutes later has much less impact, and the weight gain that happens slowly over weeks or months has very little impact and the heart disease definitely has no impact because it happens years later. 

Alcohol use works exactly the same way. I take a drink of alcohol and within a few minutes, I notice it’s effects. Now let’s say I’m at a rager, and I take more than a few drinks and have an awesome time with by buddies. The next morning I wake up with a brutal hangover. I feel anxious, shaky, my stomach is all out of whack and my head is pounding! But then (seemingly against all logic) the next day, I go out and do it all again. You might conclude: I guess that hangover isn’t as bad (con) as the party was good (pro). But again, it’s not about size, it’s about timing. First, all the awesome stuff happens; all the crappy stuff comes hours later. So the awesome stuff (which comes first) will have a much bigger effect on behavior than the crappy stuff that comes later. 

Do a little thought experiment with me: pretend you live in a world where alcohol worked a bit differently. The effects were exactly the same as they are now, but they occurred in reverse order. So in this other world, if I wanted to rage with my buddies tonight, then I’d wake up first thing in the morning and I’d pound 12 beers. Then, I’d spend my morning feel brutally hungover, I mean truly feeling awful. Then, at around 9 or 10pm tonight, I’d suddenly feel drunk, relaxed and ready to party. The science of human behavior predicts that in a world where alcohol worked this way, very few people (if any) would consume alcohol. That means that it’s not about weighing pros and cons, it’s more like a race; behaviors that are reinforced before they’re punished will continue, and behaviors that are punished before they’re reinforced are likely to cease. 

Now I know what your thinking. “If all this is true, how come I don’t have a drinking problem? How come I don’t binge eat McDonald’s? It’s because I’m a rational, logical person who can weigh long-term costs against short-term benefits, that’s why!” And to that, I say, “maybe...but I doubt it.” I bet, if you took an honest look at yourself, you’d find that while you may not overeat, or drink too much, maybe you’re a bit too quick to anger, or maybe you smoke a little too much pot, or maybe you procrastinate a little too much, or maybe you spend a little too much money, or maybe you could be a little bit nicer to your neighbor, or maybe you could exercise a bit more, or maybe you don’t quite call your mother enough... Since we are reinforced by different things, we don’t all struggle with the same problems. I don’t particularly love McDonald’s so I’ve never had to use “will power” and “logical thinking” to overcome my binge-eating problem. I never had one in the first place; there was nothing to overcome. This doesn’t make me special, it makes me lucky. 

#operant conditioning #size doesn’t matter #end stigma #overeating #radical behaviorism #science #alcoholism #nofreewill

[theradicalbehaviorist-blog]

Negative Reinforcement is not the same as punishment

Perhaps the most commonly misused term in all of behaviorism is negative reinforcement. Because it has the word negative in it, it is commonly misperceived to refer to punishment.  While it’s not the end of the world if people misuse this term, it’s unfortunate because they end up not knowing what negative reinforcement is, and that’s pretty useful.

First, reinforcement is always functionally defined to mean a consequence that increases the likelihood that a behavior will occur in the future. So, even negatively reinforcement refers to an increase in the likelihood of a behavior recurring, not a decreasing (which is what punishment does).

Second, negative doesn’t mean “bad” or “unpleasant” as it typically does in the English language. In this case, negative means the absence or removal of a stimulus. Negative=subtraction/taking away. 

So all together, negative reinforcement refers to the removal of something that leads to an increase in a behavior recurring. You know that annoying sound your car makes before you put your seatbelt on? You know how it goes away (or is removed) after you put your seatbelt on? This is negative reinforcement for wearing your seatbelt. (Of course, it’s only actually negatively reinforcing if it gets you to wear your seatbelt more in the future.)

Let’s look at another example that is extremely important to our understanding of anxiety disorders. Here’s a case of someone who has a dog phobia. 

Antecedent: feeling terrified when I see a dog

Behavior: run away and hide inside

Consequence: immediate relief of anxiety

This person is getting negatively reinforced for running away from dogs. This means that the next time they see a dog, they’ll be more likely to run away. 

Here’s a person with a bit of social anxiety at a party. 

Antecedent: feeling nervous at the party

Behavior: have an alcoholic beverage

Consequence: relief or reduction in anxiety 

This person has been negatively reinforced for drinking alcohol. Presumably, the next time they are at a party and feeling nervous, they’ll be more likely to drink alcohol. 

I’ve been debating people fairly hard on twitter about gun control. Many pro-gun activists seem to experience significant fear about being shot and killed by “some crazy person with a gun.” While I think they are a bit off about how this works, let’s take a look at the ABCs here:

Antecedent: worry about being killed by “some crazy person with a gun”

Behavior: purchase a gun &/or donate to NRA 

Consequence: relief or reduction in anxiety due to feeling protected

This person has been negatively reinforced for purchasing a gun or donating to the NRA. This partly explains why many gun owners own more than one firearm. They’ve been reinforced for purchasing them before, this makes them more likely to purchase them again. This also explains why in the wake of mass-shootings, persons who own firearms actually increase their donations to the NRA. When they feel afraid (antecedent), they rely on behaviors that have been reinforced in the past such as buying a gun or donating to the NRA. 

As a radical behaviorist, I believe in gun control but that’s not my point here. The point is that behaviors that appear drastically different from one another, actually function in the exact same way. You know how when you’re late to work, you feel anxious and you rush (maybe even speed) in the hopes of getting there on time and reducing your anxiety associated with being late? That’s negative reinforcement too. 

All people do lots of things due to negative reinforcement. When we fail to understand how it operates, we miss out on potential interventions. 

[theradicalbehaviorist-blog]

Reinforcement is not the same as reward

Today I tackle the following misconception about radical behaviorism: rewards and reinforcements are the same thing.

A reward is something you already know about. You offer a prize, a payment, a treat to someone for doing something. Take out the trash and get your allowance. Close a bunch of sales and get a bonus. Get straight As and get to take a friend on the next family vacation. 

Reinforcement is something a bit different. Reinforcement means that a consequence (something that occurs after a behavior) leads to an increased likelihood of that behavior in the future. See how that’s functionally defined? It’s defined in terms of its effect on behavior. Also, reinforcements, unlike rewards, are often thoughts or feelings. In the prior post, I mentioned how feeling good after donating money to a friend’s charity could be reinforcing. Feeling good typically wouldn’t be considered a reward because rewards are usually external stimuli that someone else offers us in the hopes of getting us to do something. 

To help bring this point home, I often see parents who yell at their kids when their kids have tantrums (episode of complaining/whining, crying, screaming). They have typically been doing this for years or months before arriving at my office and they say “nothing works, I yell and yell and he just keeps screaming and crying back!” In this case, yelling is reinforcing the tantrum. Yelling is a consequence that occurs shortly after an unwanted behavior (tantrums) and it’s actually increasing the likelihood of the tantrums occurring in the future. Now, no one in their right mind would call yelling a “reward” but it is a reinforcer because it increases the likelihood of the behavior that preceded it. 

I also often see parents who, instead of yelling, sit down and attempt to have a lengthy conversation with their child about why they tantrum. This may include a compassionate dialogue about what the child was feeling, a discussion of why their crying/screaming/protesting behavior was “wrong” and an attempt to identify a new more desirable behavior. They have also been doing this for years or months before coming to my office. They will often say “my kid needs more tools. I keep explaining to him how his behavior is wrong, but he just can’t use the tools. He keeps behaving worse and worse because he can’t control himself.” In this case, talking about the tantrum behavior is reinforcing it. These discussions are consequences that occur shortly after an unwanted behavior (tantrums) and are increasing the likelihood that this behavior occurs again in the future. Again, these conversation aren’t “rewards.” It’s not like the parent says, “hey, if you cry and scream your head off, I’ll sit down and have a lengthy conversation with you” and the kid says “yippee!” and then breaks out into an ear-piercing scream. 

In both of these cases, the parental reactions and attention are reinforcing the tantrums. The more he tantrums, the more he gets reinforced and the more he keeps having tantrums, and the more intense they get. Instead of offering more rewards or trying punishments, the behavioral strategy here is to remove the reinforcers. In the two examples above, this would involve planned ignoring aka active ignoring: 100% completely ignoring the tantrums (no reaction), and then as soon as the child starts doing a desirable behavior, 100% re-engging the child without any discussion of the tantrum that just occurred. Why no discussion afterwards? Because that’s reinforcing the tantrum.  If this is done consistently (which is quite challenging), the behavior will extinguish rapidly. If this is done inconsistently, it may never go away because the misbehavior continues to get reinforced (on an intermittent schedule). 

Now I’ve focused on parenting here, but this distinction between rewards and reinforcement is in no way exclusive to this group. If I tell a racist joke and everyone laughs and then I start telling the joke more, than the laughter is reinforcing. But if I tell a racist joke and everyone stares at me and says “you’re a racist jerk!” and then I never tell it again, that would be a punishing experience. As you see above though, it’s not always so straightforward. Some people may get the “you’re a racist jerk” response and actually tell the joke more after that. These people are reinforced by the “negative attention” they’re getting from others. Many provocateurs are reinforced by the negative attention they get. This is why I never respond to Donald Trump on twitter (and I’m not hash-tagging him here). The more angry people respond to him, the more it reinforces his offensive remarks. It makes perfect sense for someone whose reinforced by “negative attention” to attack the media. It virtually guarantees that he will continue to get negative attention from the media which is what’s reinforcing to this person. I hear people confused by his remarks saying, “I don’t get it, I keep thinking he can’t get any more offensive and then he does!” But, this actually makes perfect sense for someone who is reinforced by getting a strong reaction from others. 

So don’t confuse rewards with reinforcement. If a behavior is happening repeatedly, it is getting reinforced. And some reinforcers may seem strange to you because you’re not reinforced by those things, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t reinforcing to someone else. 

[theradicalbehaviorist-blog]

Thoughts & Feelings

I’m writing these repeating blog posts about common misconceptions in radical behaviorism. 

My first common misconception is that radical behaviorism focuses only on what is directly observable and therefore disregards thoughts and feelings. This is entirely incorrect. Thoughts and feelings are considered as antecedents and consequences in radical behaviorism. Antecedents and consequences are what come before and after behaviors, respectively. Here’s a simple ABC example that includes thoughts and feelings:

Antecedents: thought: I shouldn’t have said that nasty thing’, feelings: guilt

Behavior: apologize

Consequence: reduced feeling of guilt

The apologizing behavior therefore leads to a reduction in guilt. In the future, when guilty feelings arise, the person will be more likely to apologize because it led to a reduction in guilt in the past. This is also an example of negative reinforcement (another commonly misunderstood term that I’ll write a blog about later).

Here’s another ABC with thoughts/feelings.

Antecedent: friend asks me to done $20 to a charity they are supporting

Behavior: donate the $20

Consequence: feel good, think “I’m a nice friend.”

The donating behavior leads to an increase in pleasant thoughts and feelings. in the future, when a friend asks me to donate money to their chair, I’ll be more likely to do so because it led to pleasant feelings in the past. In this case feeling good and thinking “I’m a nice friend” are acting as examples of positive reinforcement.