ABC's...Easy As 123 Million?

In the world of a behaviourist, the ABC's mean more than just the letters of the alphabet.  They represent the relationship as part of one's behaviour(s): the (A)ntecedent-(B)ehaviour-(C)onsequence chain that is most of the behaviours we demonstrate.  To keep things simple, antecedents are things that happen before a noted behaviour.  You can call them "triggers" or "cues" if you'd like.  For example, for many of us on the roads, the traffic light is one antecedent to our driving behaviour.  If it's green, we go.  If it's red, we stop.  Meanwhile, consequences are the events or responses that occur after a behaviour.  These are either reinforcing (therefore behaviour maintains or increases over time) or they are punishing (therefore, behaviour decreases).  In the traffic light example, attending to the red light and putting on the breaks results in us safely stopping in time; thus, preventing any harm or accident.  For the most part, going through repeated experiences of the same A-B-C chain results in us learning and maintaining our skills.

Imagine all the A-B-C chains you go through on any given day.  Now imagine your role as part of someone else's A-B-C chain (i.e. something you said or did is the antecedent or consequence of someone else's behaviour).  If you're not overwhelmed already, next imagine all the different people in your life and the lives of others fulfilling the same antecedents/consequences but under different circumstances or in different environments.  The combinations of A-B-C chains seems almost endless.  The Count can't even keep up!

With so many varied and possible A-B-C chains, it explains how we as humans are unique: each with our own set of behaviours, skills, talents, interests and yes, even challenges.  We all have our own unique learning history that sets us and our behaviour apart from others.  Human behaviour is unique.  We are not all robots, nor does behaviourist theory attempt to make a person into one.  Unfortunately, this is an ever-returning criticism of behaviourism: that it ignores individual uniqueness.  I did fairly well in my finite mathematics course in high school and so I'm certain that the rate at which someone will find their perfect behavioural match is an unthinkable number. 

Perhaps The Count will let us know when he gets to that magic number 1 in ??????

It's Not All About Rewards

This posting has been weeks in the making.  I have had a lot of discussion lately about rewards and another common misconception surrounding behaviourism.  Many people against behaviourism cite that rewards don't always work, are contrived and take away from the natural and intrinsic motivation which should be inherent in our behaviour(s).  Where things get tricky is that behaviourism does not speak of rewards, but of reinforcement and these are two different (but often paired together) things.

Rewards are contrived.  They are often things that others assume other people want like: money, free trips, candy, pizza lunches, a "good job" sticker or a "free" whatever.  It assumes that these "things" are desired and worth our effort to learn and succeed.  Reinforcement however, is anything that happens after a behaviour that increases the likelihood of that behaviour happening again.  I cannot stress enough the "anything" part of that sentence.  A reinforcer can be anything: food, a book, access to friends, a smile, a nice feeling on our skin, a rubber glove, a piece of paper, a silly word, the satisfaction of completing something, etc.  I could go on and on.  The key point is that reinforcement is defined by its effect on behaviour and not on its pleasing or preferred attributes; hence, the 'anything can be a reinforcer', even something we do not like ourselves.  If a behaviour is increasing or maintaining itself, then reinforcement is at play.  In many cases, reinforcement occurs naturally in the environment or is inherent in the activity; its effect on behaviour go unnoticed.  We do not have to be aware of it for reinforcement to have occurred.

If a new behaviour is not increasing or, if an already established behaviour is decreasing, then there is no reinforcement.  Therefore, when claims are made about rewards not working, they are correct.  The reward is not working because the reward is not acting as a reinforcer.  Only sometimes do we get it right where a reward actually functions as a reinforcer.  But, we also make the mistake of assuming that because we (or the general population) like a particular thing, that it will be rewarding for others.  Even a preferred item (like money) can fail as a reinforcer.

It's a shame that when we get it wrong, Skinner, and the field of behaviourism gets the blame and the science is written off as dated, useless.  To me, it seems that people took one part of Skinner's ideas and, without much thought for the science behind it, over-generalized its use as a way to 'motivate' (cough, cough, control, cough) others.  And because this might have increased productivity or "good behaviour" for a while, those implementing the rewards were themselves reinforced for doing so.  

See how reinforcement just sneaks right in there?  It's everywhere and it's happening all the time.  Rewards on the other hand, can be hit or miss.  Don't blame behaviourism because the reward failed to do what you hoped to get out of someone.  Look for what else is happening (or not happening) and you just might see reinforcement in action.

Feelings. Nothing More Than Feelings

If this were one of Skinner's pigeons, it probably should read 'The Pigeon Has Private Events Which He's Made Public Through Verbal Behaviours of Reporting His Feelings As Well As By His Behaviour Seen Here: Crossing of the Arms'.  Yes, pigeons (and humans) have feelings.  

Enter behaviourism myth #1: behaviourism does not explain or fails to account for feelings.  

Behaviourists do not discount feelings.  We just don't think they are the causes forbehaviour.  Remember learning in grade school about our 'five senses'? (There's actually seven, but that's another post all together).  When we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, move and resist gravity we are "feeling".  Since a feeling is within the person (i.e., its event is private), it's pretty hard to observe.  We've become adept however at observing a person's behaviour and making good (but not perfect) guesses that a certain feeling has occurred.  People have also learned to label these feelings - a form of verbal behaviour -  in order to make them public.  

Suppose you sense pain (the feeling) in your ankle, then begin to limp and wince (behaviours I can see).  I am probably going to guess you're in pain and offer you some help.  The limping may also temporarily minimize pain  If you actually say, "My ankle hurts" (a behaviour I can hear), then you've really got my attention and hopefully my offer of help will assist in reducing your pain.  The next time your ankle hurts, you might wince, limp and/or say "My ankle hurts" again in order to minimize the pain or get others to give you the help you need.  The behaviourist in me would say, you didn't wince, limp or say "My ankle hurts" because you were in pain; rather, you've learned that by engaging in those behaviours, your pain is likely to diminish, just like it had before.  Your feeling of pain might have set you up to wince, limp etc. but if the feeling of pain did not change and if no one ever responded to these behaviours, you'd probably stop doing them and try something else.  

So, the next time someone asks you, "Why are you limping?"  You could say, "Because in the past, limping resulted in making my pain diminish and so I am limping now in anticipation that the same will occur".  That's a mouthful and probably more information than what someone was looking for.  Alas, it is easier to say, "Because I'm in pain".  This is where perhaps the behaviourist won't win against efficiency.  As long as statements like this are accepted as true, behaviourists might never win this battle of words.  And so, the title 'The Pigeon Has Feelings Too' shall remain.

*Thank you to my classmates in 'Prinicples of ABA' for the discussion on feelings and 'reporting of feelings' that inspired this post.  I think the more we talk about it, the more we will "know".  Good ole B.F. Skinner gets props too!  Check out his book, 'About Behaviorism' for more on this subject.