August 29, 2016

August 29, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my second response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) are real phenomena that compose this universe. These response classes are not “some type interpretation a priori.”

When these authors refer to the vocal verbal behavior of the therapist and the client, they mention the “description of events”, “orientation”, “inference” and “approval”, but they don’t consider the important fact that the sound of the speaker’s voice immediately induces either a positive or a negative affect in the listener.

These authors seek to analyze “important processes of clinical interaction” such as “the therapist’s decision making  (Margotto, 1998), the consequences supplied by the therapist to the client’s actions (Almásy, 2004; Silva, 2001) orientation and counseling given by the therapist (Donadone, 2004; Meyer & Donadone, 2002; Zamignani & Andery, 2005), the management of feelings and emotions (Almásy, 2004; Brandão, 2003; Vermes, 2000) and of different clinical complaints during the session (Barbosa, 2001; Yano, 2003; Zamignani & Andery, 2005), among many others.”

It is clear, however, that these authors didn’t investigate anything else than “criteria of content, or theme.”  Even Garcia (2007), who “studied the therapist’s behaviors related to the non-punitive audience and avoidance-blocking, respectively, and their possible effect on the client’s responses,” didn’t acknowledge that such behaviors can be analyzed in terms of how the listener experiences the speaker’s voice.

“The increase or decrease of a variety of themes” can be analyzed as instances of SVB and NVB in the conversation between the therapist and the client. Such an analysis would be both exciting and pragmatic.