Henry D. Schlinger

Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli.

Contingengy-specifying stimuli (CSSs) can function differently than discriminative stimuli. Rather than evoking behavior due to a history of discrimination training, they alter the function of other stimuli and, therefore, the behavioral relations involving those stimuli. CSSs can alter the evocative function of discriminative stimuli, establishing operations, and conditional stimuli, as well as the efficacy of reinforcing and punishing stimuli and of stimuli that can function in second-order respondent conditioning. The concept of function-altering CSSs has implications for such areas of interest as stimulus equivalence, the terminology involving “rules” and “rule-governed behavior,” and the way in which behavior analysts view the effects of such basic processes as reinforcement and punishment.

Evolution and Behavior

On June 19, 1987, the United States Supreme Court, by a 7–2 vote, struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana act requiring its teachers to devote equal time to “creation science” if they discussed evolution in their classes. This case, which was well publicized, is but one in a long series of legal battles over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Those battles are instructive in demonstrating the great reluctance with which scientific fact is accepted when it conflicts with traditional belief. And make no mistake about it, that evolution occurred is a fact. Consistent observations and inferences by the thousands indicate that, as Stephen Jay Gould (1987–1988) affirmed: The earth is billions of years old and its living creatures are linked by ties of evolutionary descent. Scientists stand accused of promoting dogma by so stating, but do we brand people illiberal when they proclaim that the earth is neither flat nor at the center of the universe. Science has taught us some things with confidence! Evolution on an ancient earth is as well established as our planet’s shape and position. Our continuing struggle to understand how evolution happens (the “theory of evolution”) does not cast our documentation of its occurrence—the “fact of evolution”—into doubt, (p. 186)

A behavior analytic view of child development

Science. Developmental Psychology. Behavior Analysis. The Development of Memory. Motor Development. Perceptual Development. Cognitive Development. Language Development. Social and Emotional Development I: Attachment Relations. Social and Emotional Development II: Moral Behavior. Index.

Separating discriminative and function-altering effects of verbal stimuli.

Ever since Skinner’s first discussion of rule-governed behavior, behavior analysts have continued to define rules, either explicitly or implicitly, as verbal discriminative stimuli. Consequently, it is not difficult to find, in the literature on rule-governed behavior, references to stimulus control, antecedent control, or to rules occasioning behavior. However, some verbal stimuli have effects on behavior that are not easily described as discriminative. Such stimuli don’t evoke behavior as discriminative stimuli, but rather alter the functions of other stimuli in a manner analogous to operant and respondent conditioning. Hence, this type of control has been called function altering. Any known stimulus function (e.g., evocative, or [conditioned] reinforcing or punishing functions) can apparently be altered by such function-altering stimuli. Describing these stimuli as discriminative stimuli obscures their possible function-altering effects and consequently may retard inquiry into them. This paper encourages behavior analysts to begin separating the discriminative and function-altering effects of verbal stimuli and suggests that by doing so, behavior analysts may better understand what may be most unique about these stimuli. Results from several experiments, especially those in which children served as subjects, are analyzed. Finally, some speculations are offered concerning the genesis of function-altering stimuli.Ever since Skinner’s first discussion of rule-governed behavior, behavior analysts have continued to define rules, either explicitly or implicitly, as verbal discriminative stimuli. Consequently, it is not difficult to find, in the literature on rule-governed behavior, references to stimulus control, antecedent control, or to rules occasioning behavior. However, some verbal stimuli have effects on behavior that are not easily described as discriminative. Such stimuli don’t evoke behavior as discriminative stimuli, but rather alter the functions of other stimuli in a manner analogous to operant and respondent conditioning. Hence, this type of control has been called function altering. Any known stimulus function (e.g., evocative, or [conditioned] reinforcing or punishing functions) can apparently be altered by such function-altering stimuli. Describing these stimuli as discriminative stimuli obscures their possible function-altering effects and consequently may retard inquiry into them. This paper encourages behavior analysts to begin separating the discriminative and function-altering effects of verbal stimuli and suggests that by doing so, behavior analysts may better understand what may be most unique about these stimuli. Results from several experiments, especially those in which children served as subjects, are analyzed. Finally, some speculations are offered concerning the genesis of function-altering stimuli.

Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli

Behavior analysts have traditionally defined rules as discriminative stimuli. Three problems with this interpretation are discussed. First, because the effects of rules are often delayed, and the effects of discriminative stimuli are immediate, classifying rules as discriminative stimuli violates the definitional requirements of the latter. Second, when rules are defined as discriminative stimuli, other truly unique effects of rules may be obscured. Finally, both rules and contingencies develop new behavioral relations; however, when rules are interpreted as discriminative stimuli, their effects are not readily compared with those of contingencies. As an alternative, we suggest that rules be interpreted as function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. Implications of this function-altering interpretation for terminology and research strategy are discussed.

Listening is behaving verbally

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, it may be important to reconsider the role of the listener in the verbal episode. Although by Skinner’s own admission, Verbal Behavior was primarily about the behavior of the speaker, his definition of verbal behavior as ‘‘behavior reinforced through the mediation of other persons’’ (1957, p. 2) focused on the behavior of the listener. But because many of the behaviors of the listener are fundamentally no different than other discriminated operants, they may not appropriately be termed listening. Even Skinner noted that the behavior of the listener often goes beyond simply mediating consequences for the speaker’s behavior, implying that the listener engages in a repertoire of behaviors that is itself verbal. In the present article I suggest that listening involves subvocal verbal behavior. I then describe some of the forms and functions of the listener’s verbal behavior (including echoic and intraverbal behavior) and conclude that there may be no functional distinction between speaking and listening.

Using a Lag Schedule to Increase Variability of Verbal Responding in an Individual With Autism

Research has shown that reinforcing novel behaviors can increase the number of different ways that an individual behaves (Goetz & Baer, 1973; Pryor, Haag, & O’Reilly, 1969). However, it was not until more recently that researchers began to consider variability to be a reinforceable operant in and of itself (Neuringer, 2002). More specifically, Neuringer suggested that variability can be taught using a Lag x schedule of reinforcement, in which x refers to the number of previous responses from which the current response must differ in order for reinforcement to occur (Page & Neuringer, 1985). The purpose of the present study was to extend one of the first studies of a Lag x schedule on verbal responses with human subjects (Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002), by increasing the lag criteria while attempting to address some of methodological limitations of the study. The participant was a 7-year-old male with autism. A changing criterion design was used and results showed that 3 novel responses were acquired and varied according to the lag schedule of reinforcement.

A reply to behavior analysts writing about rules and rule-governed behavior

Verbal stimuli called “rules” or “instructions” continue to be interpreted as discriminative stimuli despite recent arguments against this practice. Instead, it might more fruitful for behavior analysts to focus on “contingency-specifying stimuli” which are function-altering. Moreover, rather than having a special term, “rule,” for verbal stimuli whose only function is discriminative, perhaps behavior analysts should reserve the term, if at all, only for these function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli.

THE LONG GOOD-BYE: WHY B. F. SKINNER'S VERBAL BEHAVIOR IS ALIVE AND WELL ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS PUBLICATION

The year 2007 marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, a book that by Skinner’s own account was his most important. the received view, however, is that a devastating review by a young linguist not only rendered Skinner’s interpretation of language moot but was also a major factor in ending the hegemony of behaviorism in psychology and paving the way for a cognitive revolution. Nevertheless, in taking stock of Verbal Behavior and behaviorism, both appear to be thriving. This article suggests that Verbal Behavior and behaviorism remain vital partly because they have generated successful practical applications.

The effects of delayed reinforcement and a response-produced auditory stimulus on the acquisition of operant behavior in rats

The present experiment examined the effects of different delays of food delivery with and without a response-produced auditory stimulus on the acquisition of a spatially defined operant in rats. The operant was breaking a photoelectric beam located near the ceiling at the rear of the experimental chamber. In five groups of experimentally naive rats, the effects on photobeam-break responses of two different reinforcement delays (4 s and 10 s) with and without a response-produced auditory stimulus were compared during eight 1-hr sessions. In one control group (0-s delay), an immediate (i.e., 0.25-s) reinforcement contingency was in effect and in another control group (no food), responses were measured in the absence of any reinforcement contingencies. Results showed that rates of acquisition and responding were higher with shorter reinforcement delays and when there was a response-produced auditory stimulus. These results extend previous findings showing that neither direct shaping nor immediate reinforcement is necessary for operant conditioning. However, the present results demonstrate that the speed and extent of conditioning depends on the temporal relation between the response and the reinforcer. The findings are discussed in terms of a conditioned reinforcement analysis of the stimuli produced by operant responses.