September 7, 2016

September 7, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my eleventh response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). In this paper the authors discuss different types of analyses. 

My analysis is of course not included, but their work can bring the reader's attention to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), two universal response classes which characterize the expression and maintenance of positive and negative emotions.

Catania (1999) has said “The analysis of more complex patterns can involve the identification of relationships between events distant in time or response classes of a superior order” but he doesn’t mention that SVB is necessary for such analysis as NVB makes it impossible.

The problem with analysis of more complex patterns of behavior is not that they are caused by events that are “distant in time or response classes of a superior order”. Due to the high frequency of NVB and the low frequency of SVB it is impossible to talk about these matters.

NVB cannot identify more complex patterns as it fixates on verbal categories. Even “explanations with emphasis in response-consequence relationships” cannot make the researcher aware of the SVB/NVB distinction. What is required is participation in the conversation.

The researcher or therapist needs to be reinforced for listening to him or herself rather than for listening to somebody else. This self-listening makes a different kind of other-listening possible which sets the stage for SVB, which then will make different data available.

“The clinic is a privileged environment for the development of research. In this situation we have access to verbal report data that, in another situation, would be very difficult to access (Luna, 1997).”

For therapy to be effective there must be a high rate of SVB and a low rate of NVB. Researchers must also be therapists who capitalize on the fact that the clinic situation can create a high probability for SVB.

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.”

September 5, 2016

September 5, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my ninth response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). I have arrived at page ten of the paper, but due to my lack of familiarity with what these authors describe I am no longer as eager to respond. For my taste, their paper is too much about the classic approach and too little about the pragmatic approach. 

I am looking for phrases which make me want to say something about the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The fact that I can’t find them tells me how far these authors are from being able to discriminate this distinction. 

When they write “frequency of responses,” I am back on track and think of the high rates of NVB and low rates of SVB everywhere. The term “punitive audiences” refers to certain kind of listeners. If the speaker’s speech is under control of a punitive audience, he or she produces NVB, whereas if his or her speech is under control of a positively reinforcing audience, he or she produces SVB. 

It is important to recognize that SVB or NVB are caused by the kind of audience the speaker has. Our common inclination is to think of the relationship between the speaker and the listener in terms of how the speaker affects the listener, instead of the other way around. 

The frequency of SVB responses is so low because it is punished instead of reinforced. If in a verbal episode the frequency of SVB responses is increased this always goes together with a decrease of NVB responses. We are as used to NVB as we are used to our belief in an inner self.

September 4, 2016

September 4, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my eight response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). These researchers elaborate on the classic research approach and state “The categorization parting from topographic criteria has as focus similarities in the movement and/or posture and/or appearance of behavior (spatial dimensions of behavior).”

“Topographical dimensions of social behavior” are difficult to determine. Skinner (1957) states “Underneath the level of words lay roots, or, more precisely, the small ‘meaningful’ units called morphemes. Above the words are phrases, idioms, sentences, clauses, etc. Each one of them can have a functional unit as a verbal operant. A particle of behavior as small as a single sound can be under independent control of a manipulating variable. (...) On the other hand, a broad segment of behavior (...) can vary under similar functional unitary control.” (p. 21).

Aversive stimulation changes the sound of our voice. We sound very different in a safe environment. “Contiguous events when responding – immediately preceding and subsequent events – are not sufficient for the identification of a functional class of responses, but make up elements that give context to the individual’s verbalization or action.”

After considering pros and cons of the pragmatic and the classic research approach, the authors conclude that “Such categorization strategy, considering the classification of Russel and Stiles (1979), is between the classic and the pragmatic (as pointed out by Hill, 1986) and involves the estimate of the immediate function of the verbalization parting from the observation of the topography and the immediate context in which the verbalization fits in.” They get close, but not close enough so that the speaker and the listener become one.

September 3, 2016

September 3, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my seventh response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). Identification of “functional response classes” during  our interaction is made impossible due to the different status of the speaker and the listener, which causes Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

The conversation between the therapist and the client is unique in that its objective is to create and maintain Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), which is also described as therapeutic alliance. Another way of viewing SVB and NVB is by recognizing that the speaker and the listener are always separated during NVB, but are experienced as one during SVB.

NVB is a function of the extent to which the speaker is different from the listener, but SVB is a function of the extent to which the speaker is equal to the listener.  Russell and Stiles (1979) wrote about the two research strategies in psychotherapy: “the pragmatic and the classic – by means of which social interaction data could be categorized.”

The pragmatic strategy seems to refer to SVB as it “consisted in the direct inference of the observer about states or characteristics of the speaker (or in the case of the behavior analysis, direct inference of functional relations)” (italics added). This also refers to the listener who speaks and “could allow the study of quite subtle events of interaction,” which “would imply in a great degree of inference.”

The classic research strategy, on the other hand, fits with NVB as “the interpretation about the functional relations would not be done in the moment of register, but afterwards, from the systemization of categorized data which would allow the identification of patterns in the studied interaction.” In NVB the listener is not supposed to discuss the speaker’s dominance. Hierarchical differences remain in place as they are unaddressed as the inferior listener is not allowed to speak.