September 6, 2016

September 6, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my tenth response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). The behaviorist’s preference for “frequency of responses” has shown to be a “quite appropriate measure to represent the process of behavior acquisition” (Sturmey, 1996).

My frequency of SVB responses has increased to an all-time-high. In between previous semesters it caved in again as I didn’t have as much interaction anymore, but this summer I worked full time as a therapist. It is awesome to notice and be able to explain this wonderful change.

The authors state “In those studies, the frequency is an indicator from which is inferred the occurrence probability of a determined class of responses and, consequently, the process of strengthening or weakening of this class (Sidman, 1976; Skinner, 1953/1993).

Ever since I discovered the SVB/NVB distinction my SVB responses have kept on steadily increasing while my NVB response became less and less. “Stiles (1999) adds that this analysis should consider the relationship of syntony between the client’s responses and the therapist’s specific actions – called by him responsivity.” I am strengthened in my conviction that the analysis should involve SVB.

One’s normal responsiveness to and being in harmony with the environment is called syntony. This is made possible by SVB. During NVB there is no responsivity as the speaker speaks at and not with the listener.  NVB is uni-directional, forceful speech from the speaker to the listener, characterized by the  saying my way or the highway.  

“Possible functions of certain classes of behavior” don’t need to be “inferred” as they can be verified during SVB. SVB is bi-directional, which means that the speaker can at any time become the listener and the listener can at any time become the speaker. Only during SVB can the “more complex interaction pattern” be ”identified.”