Abilene Paradox

Dear Reader,

Have you heard about the Abilene paradox? To those who, like me, know about the difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), it is not a paradox, but to those who, like most people, unknowingly, mainly engage in NVB, it seems like a paradox. People who enjoy ongoing SVB together don’t collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group. It is always only in NVB that there this so-called breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group’s and, therefore, does not raise any objections. Conformity pressure which makes us say that we don’t want to rock the boat is in fact funny, as we basically can’t agree on anything during NVB. For those who know SVB, the Abilene paradox is a stupid thing as it is characterized by our inability to manage agreement. SVB speakers don’t need to manage their agreements and laugh at NVB speakers who believe they need to, but are never able to.

In Wikipedia is says that the Abilene paradox was “introduced by management Jerry B. Harvey in his 1974 article "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement". The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote that Harvey uses in the article to elucidate the paradox: On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles (85 km) north] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."
The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted. One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored. The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.” If we consider this anecdote from a behavioristic perspective and also include the SVB/NVB distinction, there is more going on than is stated in the aforementioned narrative.

The one who, dishonestly, said "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" may have really been the most honest person of the whole group. Noticing that everyone was feeling depleted, but nevertheless still trying to be upbeat about it, he or she stated the exact opposite of what happened. It wasn’t a great trip at all and they all knew it. By saying this lie, he or she was actually being honest and giving others the chance to get real about the ordeal they had just gone through. As his or her well-timed question resulted in everyone’s confession about how they had truly felt, the person who raised the question engaged in SVB.

The mother-in-law, who said that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic, was afraid to disappoint others. Her previous NVB in agreement with the decision which went against what she wanted, was negatively reinforced as she was trying to avoid being a party-pooper. Notice, however, that as she says what she really feels, she engages in SVB. Then, there was the husband, who said "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." Although I may be wrong, it doesn’t seem to me he was feeling particularly relieved to say this. I can easily imagine that he said this with a sense of resentment and blame. Moreover, he also seems to express a sense of self-loathing about feeling so obligated to the rest of the family. I would assess what he said as NVB as it struck me as negative. It seems he was trying to blame others for his negative feelings, while it was in fact his own action he regretted.

The wife said, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." She went along in order to avoid being socially disqualified as someone who wouldn’t want her husband and her family to happy. Making other people happy is more important to her than what appeared to have been an accurate evaluation of the weather. She appears to take more responsibility for her choice to go along and seems to express a sense of relief to be back in an air-conditioned home again. She felt obliged and must have expressed NVB, but, at this moment, as she is happy the whole event is now behind her, she expresses SVB. Lastly, the father-in-law only suggested to go because he thought others might be bored. People with NVB are always bored, but people with SVB are never bored. Furthermore, people with NVB are superficial and always in need of some kind of distraction as they are experiencing negative feelings from which they would like to move away. Another typical feature of NVB is that people would make conversation without having anything to say. Most likely father-in-law was right and others were bored and most likely he was reinforced before for his suggestion to go somewhere and for breaking up the boredom.

As everyone agrees that the day was a disaster, there is a brief moment of clarity. As always, these few fleeting moments in which some SVB is possible are finished before you know it. So, the situation is such the group could finally sit back for a moment and realize they were and still are in this together. They are perplexed and surprised they unknowingly together decided to take a trip none of them wanted. Reinforcement could have been available much earlier, but, before they went on their hot, dusty, frustrating trip, none of them could admit to sitting back comfortably to enjoy the afternoon. With NVB, we hope reinforcement will come later, in the distant future, but with SVB there is immediate reinforcement. The Abilene paradox illustrates the workings of NVB in a poorly functioning group in which the individuals act contrary to their own wishes and have negative feelings about the outcome of the things they seemingly decided together. NVB, our way of talking, is, of course, the only real paradox. Since we cannot agree with ourselves, we can only pretend to agree with each other. In SVB, however, we agree with ourselves and, therefore, we have no problem disagreeing with each other.