November 25, 2014

November 25, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

As Carr (2011) is saying, most problem behavior isn’t planned, it is unconscious. This precisely describes the workings of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is more like trial and error. Because it works and is reinforced, individuals lock onto it and it becomes their pattern. We are conditioned by NVB. Since Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) contingencies are difficult to maintain, as only very few people have the behavioral histories that would allow them to do so, we live in contingencies that produce NVB approximately 95% of the time and SVB only 5% of the time.  

This author has thought about how we can measure SVB and NVB. Research on autism gives him ideas of how to go about it. We must closely observe what is going on in our spoken communication. That in itself is a daunting task, since much of what goes on is covert. How are we to know what each communicator is thinking? If task avoidance correlates with having a temper tantrum, we are going to manipulate aspects of the environment, we are going to do an experiment. We hypothesize that as task demands increase, temper tantrums will increase and then we put our hypothesis to the test. We are not inclined to think of the expression of our own feeling as an increase in task demand, but that is exactly what it is. We are not that good at describing our nonverbal experience with words.  

We can deal with the threatening NVB of others by moving away from them. If it is not physically possible, we move away ‘psychologically’, that is we get distracted when our covert speech is completely different from the overt speech that is going on. This also signifies a discrepancy between our verbal and our nonverbal behavior, between what we say and what we do. Each time a teacher has to deal with the anger outburst of the unruly child, he or she is more inclined to back off. In effect, the child’s behavior is negatively reinforced. When we move away from each other’s NVB,  we reinforce it. The function of the child’s tantrum is the avoidance of having to do the work and the function of the NVB verbalizer is the avoidance of having to communicate, that is, to have SVB. 

What is being taught in communication classes is that if someone argues well, they usually get what they want. However, while they may win the debate or the court case, they produce and maintain NVB, which is identical to a child who acts out to get what it wants. Indeed,  NVB is a childish and unsophisticated behavior. There can be different reasons why a temper tantrum occurs. May be it happens because of task avoidance, social avoidance, may be it has to do with the need for homeostasis? One must probe each of these possibilities by changing aspects, independent variables, in the environment, to find of what the tantrum, the dependent variable, is function. The social avoidance that is involved in NVB is quite obvious. However, it is covered up by and justified with habits to conform to hierarchy. The boss, leader, authority or anyone who is supposedly ‘above’ us, only gives the impression to be social, but doesn’t need to be socially engaged. If someone steps out of line, as they most certainly would in the case of SVB, it becomes embarrassingly clear that what went on the name of our spoken communication was mainly a process in which people coerce each other into behaving in a subservient and compliant manner. In NVB people supposedly ‘know their place’, but the fragile order this creates falls apart at the drop of a hat.  How different is the order which is created by SVB. That order is only there when SVB is there. It is not separate from SVB.

       

You must know about the circumstances in which you can have SVB. It is also important to know the contingencies that produce problem behavior: NVB. After a behavioral analysis, you can develop a treatment which decreases and prevents occurrence of tantrums. After you analyze the situation in terms of what the triggers are, you can modify them. You can only begin to modify the situation of your covert speech with your overt speech, if your overt speech is a function of SVB. However, if your overt speech is a function of NVB, this will negatively impact your covert speech.   

    

This brings us to the setting event as an important aspect of why we behave in a certain way. At any given moment, one may be tired or in pain and this affects how one will behave. One’s behavior is always embedded in a broader context and is based on more than what happens in the present environment. By specifying this broader context, one is capable of predicting when one will behave a NVB way or in a SVB way. Things which normally may be only mildly aversive may under certain circumstances become very aversive. For instance, the variance of one’s behavior may be accounted for by whether one had a good or a bad day at work.

Knowing the difference between SVB and NVB involves recognizing that NVB is the problem behavior and SVB is the replacement behavior. It is useful to follow standard procedure. When analyzing NVB, one must deal with setting events (e.g. noise), triggers or discriminative stimuli (e.g. reading task), responses (e.g. aggression) and consequences (e.g. reading task removed). The broader context of the setting events can be subdivided into three different categories: social setting events (e.g. recently teased), activities setting events or routines (e.g. having to make transitions) and biological setting events (e.g. side effects of medication). These setting events mediate the arousal levels and are directly responsible for either the evocation of SVB or the illicitation of NVB. 

Carr (2011) interviewed many parents and asked them what social setting events were most likely to cause their children’s aggressive behavior? The probability they explode in problem behavior (e.g. anger and self-injury)is 80% if they are denied access; 50% for communication; 30% for getting the  attention; 30% for having a disagreement; 30% for being disciplined; 25% bad day; 20% being hurried; 10% being teased. Carr explained that 10% teasing doesn’t mean it isn’t important; it is very important for the 10% of families who see teasing as a major trigger for the problem behavior of their children. Few people see NVB as a problem, but this doesn’t make it any less real. Aforementioned social setting events produce states of arousal and this in turn mediates problem behavior and NVB. Without these social setting events, explosive problem behaviors or NVB are less likely to occur.

The data are screaming at us: horrible relationships and poor rapport cannot do anything else, but create a context for NVB, mankind’s major problem behavior. Troublesome relationships are acquired over time due to inescapable, repeated, negative NVB interactions. A child is going to act out more often if it is continuously aroused by NVB. Problem behaviors and NVB are not happening out of the blue, but are especially likely to occur when the child wants something, when it has a specific goal. There is also a difference in the roles fathers and mothers play in raising children. Mothers function mostly as caregivers, but fathers are more like play mates. Ratings given by fathers on teasing are more than twice as high (20%) than mothers (8%). It is evident from the data that fathers are clueless about what sets off their children, while mothers, who are more involved in setting limits on the behavior of their children, have a better sense of what sets them off. Unless we are dealing with single fathers, most fathers have less exposure to their children than mothers and thus are less familiar with their problem behavior. This is evidence that mothers are more involved in the teaching SVB, while fathers are more involved in teaching NVB. However, adult men and women are equally involved in NVB, while children are generally more likely to engage in SVB than adults.