November 24, 2014

November 24, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorst

Dear Reader, 

The objective of this writing is to explain to the reader in plain language the immense difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The reader is asked to keep on reading and to familiarize him or herself with these two new constructs, which are bound to become more and more clear. Amazingly, nobody has yet made this distinction. When this author first made it, he couldn’t believe that he was the only one who had ever done this. It seemed to him  almost impossible that he had discovered something of such great importance. However, during his many years of studying psychology all he could find were indirect references to what is indisputably the very essence of human interaction. The great difference between SVB and NVB tells us whether we are communicating with each other or not. Once we know and agree what SVB and NVB is, we can measure the rate of responding, which determines whether we are having a relationship or not, whether we understand each other or not, and, yes even whether we will behave intelligently or not. 

      

The research on autism that was done by Edward G. Carr (2011), which this author is about to discuss, interestingly contains many of the basic facts about SVB and NVB. This writing is a transcription of the lecture given by Carr. Listen to it and go to Google and cut and paste this link: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Edward+G.+Carr+behaviorism&tbm=vid When this author heard how Carr speaks, he was reminded of the kind and calm voice of B.F. Skinner, who, with the way in which he speaks, has the same exact pleasant impact on this writer. These wonderful human beings instantly make this author feel at ease. Moreover, because he feels so at ease, he understands what they are saying and is interested in learning more about their work. The vocal verbal behavior of these fine scholars is as close to SVB as this author has ever heard. However, although he deeply appreciates their dedication and knowledge, they don’t speak of SVB or NVB. 

   

The work of these behaviorists illustrates what SVB and NVB is. This author is not interested in convincing the reader that SVB or NVB exist, rather, he is delighted to have found the evidence which fits so perfectly with his findings. With SVB and NVB, it isn’t up to this writer to convince the reader, but it is up to the reader to convince him or herself and to verify that SVB and NVB are real.

Most problem behavior isn’t planned, but is unconscious. It is like trial and error. Because it works, because it pays off and reinforced, individuals lock onto it and it becomes their pattern. We have to find a way of measuring it. For this we must observe closely what is going on. If task avoidance correlates with having a temper tantrum, we are going to manipulate aspects of the environment, in other words, we are going to do an experiment. Most likely, as the task demands increase, temper tantrums increase. Consequently, each time a teacher has to deal with the anger outburst of the unruly child, he or she is more inclined to back off. In this way, the child’s behavior is negatively reinforced. The function of his or her tantrum is the avoidance of having to do the work (Carr, 2011). 

What is taught under such circumstances is that when the child acts aggressively, it gets what it wants. Of course, there can be different reasons why the temper tantrum occurs. May be it is task avoidance, social avoidance or may be it has to do with homeostasis? One must probe each of these possibilities by changing aspects, independent variables, in the environment to find out if the tantrum, the dependent variable, is function of the manipulation of these variables. After a behavioral analysis, we can develop treatment which decreases and prevents occurrence of tantrums. After we analyze the situation in terms of what the triggers are, we modify them (Carr, 2011). 

Another aspect of the causation of behavior is the setting event. One may be tired or in pain and this affects how one behaves. One’s behavior is always embedded in a broader context and is based on more than only what happens in the present environment. By specifying this broader context, one is more capable of predicting when one will behave a certain way. Things which normally may only be mildly aversive may, under certain circumstances, become incredibly aversive. The variance of one’s behavior may be accounted for by whether one had a good or a bad day at work (Carr, 2011). 

When analyzing behavior, one must deal with setting events (e.g. noise), triggers or discriminative stimuli (e.g. reading task), responses (e.g. aggression) and consequences (e.g. reading task removed). The broader context of the setting events can be subdivided into three different categories: social setting events (e.g. recently teased), activities setting events or routines (e.g. having to make transitions) and biological setting events (e.g. side effects of medication). All of these setting events mediate arousal levels. Parents were interviewed and asked what social setting events were most likely to cause their children’s aggressive behavior? The probability that they explode in problem behavior (e.g. anger and self-injury) is 80% if denied access; 50% if someone is communicating; 30% getting the attention; 30% having disagreement; 30% being disciplined; 25% bad day; 20% being hurried; 10% being teased. Ted Carr (2011), who collected these data, explained that 10% teasing doesn’t mean that it isn’t important; it is very important for the 10% of families who see teasing as a major trigger for problem behavior. All of these social setting events produce states of arousal and this in turn mediates problem behavior. Important to realize is that without these social setting events there is no arousal and explosive problem behavior is less likely to occur (Carr, 2011).

Not surprisingly, horrible relationship and poor rapport create a context for problem behavior. These troublesome relationships are acquired over time due to repeated negative interactions. A child is going to act out more often if it repeatedly is aroused by this. Problem behavior are not happening out of the blue, but are especially likely to occur when the child wants something,  when it has a specific goal. There is also a difference in the roles that fathers and mothers play in raising children. Mothers function primarily as caregivers and fathers function as play mates. Consequently, ratings given by fathers on teasing are more than twice as high (20%) than mothers (8%). It is evident from the data that fathers are pretty clueless about what sets off their children. Mothers, who are more involved in setting limits on the behavior of their children, have a better sense of what sets them off. Unless we are dealing with single fathers, most fathers have less exposure to their children than mothers and are consequently less familiar with their problem behavior (Carr, 2011).  

The establishment of generality in a single subject design is accomplished by three approaches: 1) direct replication (DR), 2) systematic replication (SR)and 3) operational replication (OR). In DR we treat a person of the same age, with the same diagnosis and the same problem behaviors. In SR we give the same treatment to people with a wide variety of ages, different diagnoses and different behaviors, so as to establish more generality, more external validity. In OR, another scientist than the one who did the initial research, who may not even trust the findings, replicates the study and gets the same results. The single subject design, common in behaviorological research, yields much more reliable results than group statistical designs, which are nevertheless still considered by most to be the gold standard (Carr, 2011).