August 28, 2016

August 28, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writing is a response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). 

The paper deals with “the client-therapist interaction from a behavior analytic point of view.” I will use this paper to illustrate my distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), categories of “behaviors in clinical interaction,” which can and should be observed and measured. 

I claim high rates of SVB and low rates of NVB in the conversation between the client and the therapist “are the interpersonal variables that are responsible for the change in therapy.” SVB is necessary!

As the SVB/NVB distinction involves both the verbal and the nonverbal interaction between the therapist and the client, it can be considered as one of the “process researches” these authors are writing about. 

Their aim of “maximizing the effects of treatment” is accomplished by skillfully increasing SVB and reducing NVB in the interaction between therapist and client. These authors focus on “mutual influence” in which the behavior of the therapist and the client are “analyzed as social behaviors.” Shared control is the main characteristic of SVB. 

Although these authors write about “social stimuli,” surprisingly, the sound of the speaker’s voice and the listener’s response to it is of not mentioned anywhere in  their “identification of regularities.” 

The SVB/NVB distinction could greatly contribute to these authors’ aim of “identifying regularities in the systematization of the observation data into classes of behavior of the therapist and client.”

The SVB/NVB distinction will clarify the “different theoretical assumptions that guide each one of the studies” considered by these authors. Many things which before weren’t clear will become clear.