February 27, 2015

February 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writer takes a critical look at Skinner’s definition of verbal behavior. He is convinced that Skinner's definition makes behaviorists focus less on spoken communication than on written communication. Verbal behavior, which focuses on mediation by other organisms, considers environmental variables of which it is a function. This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't explain why written language has taken precedence over spoken language. There is a need to treat vocal verbal forms separately from written verbal forms and to remind ourselves that vocal verbal behavior is behavior that is reinforced through the responses of another organism (Skinner, 1957).  If we don’t do that, written forms of verbal behavior take, as they have already done and will continue to do, our attention away from vocal or spoken forms of verbal behavior. Our writing and reading takes our attention away from speaking and listening and from the crucial question why we talk the way we do, or rather, why we adhere to coercive and therefore problematic communication. No internal agents or evil individuals are causing this, but identifiable environmental variables.

We live in age in which vocal verbal behavior is diminished by our rapidly developing technology. Technology-driven contingency changes confuse the means by which we disseminate information, such as TV, radio, computers, I-phones, etc., with the methods, such as sequencing, prompting, priming and other techniques (Vargas, 2012). Not without reason, even most long distance education is based on an outdated Lecture Model, which couldn’t and never did match the behavioral variability of students. This Lecture Model, however, is a product of our still important, but neglected vocal verbal behavior, which not only “constrains our technologies” (Vargas, 2012), but also undermines our relationships.

Although most behaviorologists are familiar with the definition of verbal behavior and changed their way of talking accordingly, this change in their terminology did not and could not affect how they communicate, which is still represented by this outdated Lecture Model. A lot of behavior is considered as verbal behavior, but it elicits rather than evokes another organism’s behaviors. Moreover, the mediator can not and does not mediate such direct, nonverbal behavior, because he or she is not in the position to provide reinforcers, while he or she is coerced to reflexively produce whatever the higher status, forceful verbalizer demands. This mediator-unfriendly Lecture Model is only useful for making clear that much respondent behavior is masked as operant behavior. 

The Lecture Model is essentially based on the speaker's nonverbal way of communicating. When the dominating verbalizer speaks at the mediator, the mediator's respondent behavior is not to be confused with mediation. Verbal behavior, however, only occurs if the verbalizer speaks with the mediator, that is, only if the mediator can mediate the verbalizer. 

As there is a difference between operant and respondent behavior, Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) are recognized as two subsets of verbal behavior. SVB refers to the verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with positive reinforcement, while NVB refers to the verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an aversive contingency. Once agreement is reached about this distinction, NVB will no longer be considered as verbal behavior. This writer suggests that we should call it what it is: coercion, intimidation, abuse, domination and exploitation.