January 12, 2016

January 12, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The antecedent event which functionally evokes Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) is difficult to trace as each time the contingency changes, our way of speaking changes. Under what we have come to accept as ‘normal circumstances’ the contingency isn’t stable enough to continue with SVB. 

Each time we engage again in a fear-based way of speaking, we will engage again in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Since NVB is so common, we don’t realize that SVB is preceded by an entirely different evocative stimulus, a different sounding voice, than NVB. 

We have not been able to control for our fears long enough during our interactions to trace the independent variable which causes us to talk the way we do. The sound of the voice of the SVB speaker creates an appetitive contingency, whereas the sound of the NVB speaker’s voice creates an aversive contingency for the listener. This discriminative stimulus was never properly analyzed because of the lack of attention in NVB for the speaker-as-own-listener. 

The speaker-as-own-listener is also immediately affected by his or her own voice.As long as the speaker is not listening to him or herself while he or she is speaking, he or she cannot know what causes him or her to speak in the way that he or she speaks. Only when the contingency is without any aversive stimulation will the speaker be able to listen to him or herself while he or she is speaking. When a speaker is familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction, he or she can calmly describe the three-term contingency in which other speakers will listen to themselves while they speak as well. When other speakers do that, they will be able notice that their way of speaking has effortlessly changed from NVB to SVB.