Go
back to Organizational Behavior Management Articles & Chapters
Conceptual
Behavior Analysis
Richard W. Malott1
Behavior Analysis Program
Department of Psychology
Western Michigan University
Download
Word version of this article
Abstract
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by lust for the straight
semi-log transform, drilling ever deeper into the void of free-operant
chaos, who floating across everyday life, attempted to perfectly fit
the new king-- autistic child, striking worker, deciding executive,
forcing the cool babe of conceptual analysis down the drain with the
hypothetico-deductive bath water of mentalism, eager to justify, confusing
analog with homologue, functional equivalent with fundamental equivalent,
justifying the Skinner box in terms of applications, the applications
in terms of the Skinner box.
This commentary addresses three issues concerning the excellent argument
of Normand, Bucklin, and Austin (1998): the lack of conceptual analyses,
the importance of conceptual analyses, and the difficulty of conceptual
analyses.
The
Lack of Conceptual Analyses
Concerning the first issue, the lack of conceptual analyses, I agree
with the basic argument that there is insufficient consideration of
the concepts and principles underlying the behavioral interventions
described in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM),
as well as the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) (Pierce
& Epling, 1980).
The
Practical Importance of Conceptual Analyses
Concerning the second issue, the practical importance of conceptual
analyses, in organizational behavior management and applied behavior
analysis, flying by the seat of our atheoretical pants may not result
in a crash as inevitably as flying in the aerodynamically incapable
airplane to which the Normand et al. refer. In other words, I think
a careful conceptual analysis is far from a prerequisite to the design
of excellent behavioral interventions; at least the lack of conceptual
analysis certainly does not prevent the articles from being published
in the aforementioned, excellent, peer-reviewed journals. The empirically
demonstrated success of these atheoretical interventions further demonstrates
their flight worthiness.
To write about a “science-based approach to behavior management”
may be painting with too narrow a brush. As mentioned before, the
usual published behavioral interventions are evaluated empirically
and often rigorously, which makes them “scientific.” The
articles where they are reported just do not make reference to the
basic concepts and principles of the science, which makes them of
less conceptual or theoretical interest but perhaps of no less practical
interest.
Normand et al. say, “Without first analyzing the variables maintaining
presenting problems and then analyzing the behavioral mechanism of
effective treatments,” we are likely to crash. I doubt it. Most
of the published interventions have been successful, without the benefit
of a careful conceptual analysis of the controlling variables. (keep
in mind that Normand et al. mean a conceptual analysis; they do not
mean an experimental, functional analysis of the controlling variables.)
As Normand et al. suggest, many problems may not lend themselves to
laboratory analogs. Instead, I think organizational behavior-management
problems are often behavioral systems-analysis problems, like making
sure the right information, the right tools, the right job aids, and
adequate staff are available. Furthermore, many of these systems problems
do not readily fit into neat, easily evaluated packages, because these
systems problems often involve continuously changing, small, component
interventions, with each component intervention being insignificant
individually, and, thus, with each component intervention defy an
analysis in terms of a multi-element design, especially because the
component interventions often occur within an ever-changing context;
yet it is still important to evaluate the overall effectiveness of
these goal-directed, real-world systems changes, in spite of their
incremental, tinkering nature and the constant flux of the settings.
Furthermore, for at least two reasons, it may be important for JOBM
to publish these real-world systems changes. First such publications
may point to the emerging universality of some systematically replicated
intervention packages. And, second, such publications may provide
the university researcher/teachers with models of what real-world
organizations are willing to pay for, thus, perhaps increasing the
emphasis on training graduate students to do the sort of behavioral
interventions and evaluations they will be doing once they graduate,
rather than the JABA-style intervention and evaluation methodology
that dominates so much of our current applied behavior analysis and
OBM undergraduate and graduate training.
The authors say, “This lack of a functional assessment makes
it difficult for readers to decide if a proposed intervention is applicable
to a situation with which they might be dealing.” I doubt if
most real-world consumers understand correct, conceptual behavior
analyses, let alone make use of such analyses in selecting an intervention;
whether something is a rule-governed analog to avoidance of the
loss of a reinforcer or simple, plain-vanilla reinforcement is
far from the deciding factor for such consumers. In fact, calling
something the conceptually nonsensical differential reinforcement
of other behavior may put the politically correct gloss and consumer-oriented
spin on a procedure whose dark, aversive-control underbelly would
be revealed by a thoughtful conceptual analysis to be punishment
by the prevention of the presentation of a reinforcer. And calling
a procedure overcorrection rather than the more technically correct
punishment by the presentation of an aversive condition may allow
us to slip an effective procedure over on an aversive-control phobic
institutional review board. In addition, such conceptual obfuscation
of aversiveness may allow those applied behavior analysts concerned
with the fallout of coercion to comfortably look in the mirror every
morning as they shave or put on their lipstick or both. In short,
I think correct conceptual analyses will exert little positive control
over the behavior of the consumer.
The
Difficulty of Conceptual Analyses.
And concerning the third issue, correct conceptual analyses are very
difficult. Therefore, requiring such analyses may not suffice, because
the skills of precise conceptual analysis are not learned by most
applied behavior analysts, regardless of their record of publication
in JOBM and JABA.
We train and over train our students in experimental methodology to
the point that a good review paper is not one that points to underlying
conceptual continuity or new conceptual generality. Instead a good
review paper is considered to be one that points out that most of
the research was group design and therefore inferior to multi-element,
multiple-baseline, varying criterion, reversal, single-organism design,
systematically replicated across organisms, behaviors, and settings,
with an inter-observer reliability of .97%. Our over emphasis on training
to classify research designs seems to compete with training to do
conceptual analyses.
Furthermore, when behavior analysts do allude to a conceptual analysis,
they often make a reference to the principles derived from “scientific
research.” They seem to do this for the prestige it implies,
so they can say, we are scientific and all them other guys ain’t.
So they can imply they have on their white lab coats when they say, always use reinforcement, always accentuate the positive, always
catch ‘em being good.
And even when behavior analysts are not trying to cloak their recommendations
with the mantle of “science,” their explicit or implicit
conceptual analyses are too simplistic, for example:
Simplisticism #1: Use descriptive praise, even with non-verbal clients.
Simplisticism #2: Rule-governed analogs with outcomes that are delayed
by hours, days, or weeks, are really instances of simple, Skinner-box
reinforcement which can be explained in terms of the molar matching
law.
Simplisticism # 3: A day’s work is a reinforceable response
unit, just like the rat’s lever press.
Simplisticism #4: The weekly paycheck is an FI (fixed-interval)-scheduled
reinforcer.
Simplisticism #5: Congress’ law passing is reinforced on an
FI schedule.
Simplisticism #6: Rule-governed behavior mediates delays between behavior
and consequences in organizational settings.
Science
vs. Engineering
I think a big part of our problem is that we often try to be too
“scientific.” Often we think we are doing basic research,
when we are really doing behavioral engineering. Thus our over emphasis
on research methods. Furthermore, our uncritical quest for scientific
respectability (rather than conceptual purity) may explain why our
frame of reference is often the superficial trappings of the Skinner
box, rather than the fundamental principles that must underlie even
the most fashionable of current basic-research topics. Because of
a superficial understanding of the principles of behavior, we seek
to reinforce work behavior on a fashionable intermittent schedule,
when continuous reinforcement would be more effective. Or we strain
to find a problem where we can apply fashionable Skinner-box, behavioral-momentum
research rather than to find a procedure that will take care of a
real behavior problem. We force laboratory procedures on the real
world, rather than let the real world guide basic laboratory research.
We feel so compelled to argue we are validating a principle of behavior,
that we fall back on the ubiquitous law of effect to carry the burden
of our scientific respectability; or we criticize our field for not
finding other basic behavioral principles to study in OBM, when maybe
that’s all there is, if that.
Why
Care About Conceptual Analysis
Understanding
I think the real goal of science is to tell us how the world works--how
this causes that. Prediction and control are just
superficially operational hand maidens of understanding.
And understanding is more than a grab bag of empirical findings. It
is a conceptual framework, within which we can interrelate the facts
of our discipline, our empirically demonstrated functional relations.
Understanding is our concepts and principles carefully applied to
the classification and interrelating of our facts. Without careful,
thoughtful conceptual analyses of our basic, applied, and engineering
efforts, we can not have true understanding and thus we can not achieve
the goal of the science of behavior analysis.
Applying
For those who do not consider understanding to be sufficiently bottom
line, I also suggest that more careful, thoughtful, precise conceptual
analyses would allow us to design more effective behavioral interventions
in OBM and other applied areas. For example of beinf more effective
is that we would provide feedback immediately before rather than after
the response, if we were operating on the basis of a careful conceptual
analysis.. Similarly, we would shun intermittent reinforcement for
continuous reinforcement. And similarly, we should use deadlines,
when trying to maintain or increase performance with analog contingencies;
and thus we would use analogs to avoidance rather than analogs to
reinforcement. (For the conceptual underpinnings and more detailed
analyses of many of the common conceptual errors alluded to in this
article, see the corresponding self-proclaimed “thoughtful”
analyses in Malott, Whaley, and Malott, 1997.).
Conclusion:
Scowl
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by lust for the straight
semi-log transform, confusing the little dots falling on the straight
line, with underlying process (if it’s straight as a gate, it’s
straight, gate),
High-IQed hipsters seduced by Gerbrandsian Jezebels, the smoothness
of FI scallops, one question leading to the next, one control demanding
yet another, drilling ever deeper into the void of free-operant chaos,
losing sight of the light at the start of the tunnel, just as their
fathers before them had lost their insight in the blinding alleys
of the t-maze and the nonsense of syllables, pseudo-sweet preparations
for the study of the machine in the soul, lost with no trail of common-sense
crumbs, lost with no trials of the discrete,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat contemplating
the perfect semi-log fit of the King’s new clothes, suffering
the little child to come unto them, the little child proclaiming,
but the King shivereth, bare-butt naked,
who floating across everyday life, attempted to perfectly fit the
new king-- autistic child, psychotic adult, procrastinating freshman,
striking worker, compulsive gambler, deciding executive, the pure-science
King dead, the white Carneaux no longer flying, Bird living only in
Musac choruses of simplistic extrapolations from Skinner box to daily
life, tunes you can dance to, but only if you don’t look at
your feet,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes, hallucinating
black Skinner boxes, forcing cool babe of conceptual analysis down
drain with hypothetico-deductive bath water of mentalism, Blake-black-light
tragedy,
who were expelled from the academies, the journals, the regional
associations for crazy & publishing obscene single-organism odes
on the windows of the skull, no variance to analyze in the war of
scholars,
who bared their brains to Heaven, confusing the sanctity of science
with the reality of market place, eager to please, eager to justify,
confusing analog with homologue, confusing functional equivalent with
fundamental equivalent, justifying S. box in terms of applications,
applications in terms of S. box. Eve’s snake ignores the Big
Apple to swallow it’s own tail in circular ecstasy.
(for the model, see Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, http://php.indiana.edu/~avigdor/poetry/ginsberg.html)
If there is anyone whom I have not offended, please let me know and
I’ll add a couple more paragraphs.
References
Malott, R. W., Whaley, D. L., & Malott, M. E. (1997). Elementary
principles of behavior (third edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
Normand, M., Buckland, B, & Austin, J. (1999). The Analysis of
Behavioral Mechanisms in JOBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management.
(Pierce, W. D. & Epling, W. F.(1980). What happened to analysis
in applied behavior analysis? The Behavior Analyst, 3, 1-9.