old.dickmalott.com
Behaviorism, Autism, and Procrastination
Contents
Go back to Organizational Behavior Management Articles & Chapters
The EO in OBM
Richard W. Malott
Go back to previous page
Solutions in Search of Problems vs. Problems in Search of Solutions
There are two, not necessarily exhaustive, approaches to using science and technology to solve real-world problems. The one Olson et al recommend is the solution-in-search-of-a-problem approach. In other words, analyses of EOs seems to be helpful in reducing dysfunctional behavior of clients who are non-verbal; so Olson, et al, propose that we search problems solvable by analyses of the EOs among those problems involving the increasing of functional behavior of clients who are verbal.
This solution-in-search-of-a-problem approach has become so prominent that it may now dominate behavior analysis (e.g., behavioral momentum, the probability matching law, functional analysis, the EO, itself, and from an earlier era, schedules of reinforcement). Of course, the solution-in-search-of-a-problem is a reasonable, valuable approach; but it has at least two drawbacks. First, behavior analysts become so enamored with the currently fashionable solution, that they force fit the solution in a nearly rote, unthinking manner, with little concern for the appropriateness of that fit (like the little boy with a new hammer who must hammer everything in sight, whether it is hammerable or not).
There might be fewer strained fits, if the those behavior analysts followed the recommendation of Olson et al and based their science and technology on a sophisticate interest in underlying behavioral mechanisms. Much, though not all, of the inappropriateness of these forced fits is again due to simplistic extrapolations from Skinner-box research with non-verbal rats and pigeons; these extrapolations are to complex, language-based, human contexts.
My criticism of these extrapolations is not to suggest that there isn’t a little rat in all of us, not to suggest that basic, Skinner-box research is irrelevant to our understanding of complex, human behavior. However, to find the relevance, we must dig deeply into the underlying behavioral processes, more deeply than most behavior analysts usually go. So the first difficulty with the solution-in-search-of-a-problem is that it may often result in inappropriate, forced solutions.
The second difficulty is that this approach has become so dominant, at least in the research literature, that it may be driving out the problem-in-search-of-a-solution approach. For example, researchers who are successful publishers often explicitly ensure that they are doing research on solutions currently fashionable in their targeted journals. And researchers who are unsuccessful publishers often complain that their manuscripts are being rejected because they are not using fashionable solutions. (Of course, this applies to fashionable problems to be solved, as well as fashionable solutions.) And while it is, no doubt, valuable for individual researchers to carry out thematic research, it may be harmful for an entire discipline to do so. (Incidentally, the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior’s publication of Michael’s original EO article [1982], itself, illustrates that that fashion can be bucked, as does that article’s gradually but steadily growing number of citations in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis [see Iwata, Smith, & Michael, 2000].)
I have some concern about both of these difficulties with regard to the proposal of Olson et al; they propose that we look for OBM problems that can be solved by manipulating the EO. First, in my opinion, the authors had to strain considerably to find OBM examples that EO manipulations might possibly solve. This suggests that, to avoid inappropriate, forced fits, those who follow the EO-solutions strategy in OBM will have to do so with considerable more theoretical sophistication than has been evidenced in most empirical OBM articles.
The second difficulty is that this EO-solution strategy may have the potential to dominate OBM research to the extent that it suppresses other solutions to OBM problems. Fortunately, the empirical work in OBM seems to be less driven by fashionable solutions than is the case in the general field of applied behavior analysis (ABA). However, the theoretical OBM articles do tend to sail in on the breeze of fashion, as the article by Olson et al would indicate, not that this is always bad, especially if such articles are accompanied by a critical, theoretical intelligence, as is the case with that article.
There is another potential problem related to this second fashionable-solutions difficulty: The EO-solution strategy may also tend to suppress work on problems not readily solved by EO manipulations, a problem of narrowness that may be occurring in the published literature in the general field of ABA. This could be especially unfortunate, if it turns out that the sort of problems EO manipulations can solve do not account for the majority of the problems in OBM, as, in deed, the examples of Olson et al seem to suggest.
None of this means it might not be of value for some researchers in OBM to aggressively purse the EO as a fundamental cause of some OBM problems and to purse the manipulation of the EO as a solution to those problems. It is only to suggest that, in modeling after the general field of ABA by exploring the importance of the EO, we should not make the more general mistake of the researchers and editors in general ABA, the mistake of becoming too fashion conscious.
There is another interesting issue related to the strategy of solutions in search of problems. It is the concept in search of examples. Lindsley referred to this as the problem of the conceptual zoo (Lindsley, 1977). We can build a framework or matrix of concepts that might more or less exhaustively describe a domain. Then we send explorers out to find animals to fill each of the cages of our zoo, to find examples to fill each of the cells of our matrix or framework, examples to illustrate each concept. But we may discover that creatures do not exist in nature to fill each of the cages of our zoo, in other words, that examples do not exist in nature to fill each of the cells in our framework, to illustrate each of our concepts. For instance, outside the laboratory or the explicit behavior-modification setting, my explorers and I have failed to discover realistic example of traditional shaping (fixed-outcome shaping) or differential reinforcement of other behavior, though these procedures are common and useful in ABA research and application efforts.
Similarly, we should remain sensitive to the possibility that, though the EO is an important, fundamental concept in behavior analysis and in general ABA, we might discover few significant instances where knowledge of the relevant EOs will give us nontrivial insights into the nature of the world of OBM and few instance where it will allow us to manage performance better in that world. Olson et al seem sensitive to the possibility that the EO/OBM cage might remain fairly barren; I hope that other conceptual explorers maintain that sensitivity. But, in any case, the only way to know the fate of the EO/OBM cage is to send out a few exploring parties. (Incidentally, Lindsley also suggested that our conceptual zoos should not blind us to the possibility that we might discover in the real world important behavioral phenomena for which we have not prepared a cage.)Continue reading this article (page 3)
Contact Malott, et. al