Sigrid S. Glenn

Contingencies and metacontingencies: Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural materialism

A synthesis of cultural materialism and behavior analysis might increase the scientific and technological value of both fields. Conceptual and substantive relations between the two fields show important similarities, particularly with regard to the causal role of the environment in behavioral and cultural evolution. Key concepts in Marvin Harris’s cultural materialist theories are outlined. A distinction is made between contingencies at the behavioral level of analysis (contingencies of reinforcement) and contingencies at the cultural level of analysis (metacontingencies). Relations between the two kinds of contingencies are explored in cultural practices from paleolithic to industrial sociocultural systems. A synthesis of these two fields may offer the opportunity to resolve serious problems currently facing modern cultures.

Individual behavior, culture, and social change

The principle of operant selection is examined as a prototype of cultural selection, and the role of the social environment is suggested as the critical element in the emergence of cultural phenomena. Operant contingencies are compared to cultural selection contingencies, designated as metacontingencies. Both of these types of contingency relations result in evolving lineages of recurrences that can become increasingly complex in the number and organization of their elements. In addition to its role in the recurring interlocking behavioral contingencies that constitute cultural organization, operant behavior plays another role in cultures. Although the operants of individuals are functionally independent of one another, the behavior of each person may contribute to a cumulative effect that is relevant to the well-being of many people. Similarly, the outcomes of metacontingencies may also contribute to a cumulative effect. The relation between independently evolving operant lineages, or between independently evolving cultural lineages, and their cumulative effect is identified as a macrocontingency. Macrocontingencies do not involve cultural-level selection per se. Effective cultural engineering requires identifying the macrocontingencies that produce less than desirable effects and altering the relevant operant contingencies or metacontingencies to produce change in the cumulative effects.

Operant Contingencies and the Origin of Cultures

Writers from a variety of disciplines recognize that culture is composed of or depends on behavior, but is also somehow more than an unorganized collection of behavioral events. Biologist Bonner (1980) defined culture as “behavior transmitted from one individual to another by teaching and learning” (p. 17). Cultural anthropologist Harris (1964) stated, “human behavior constitutes the cultural field of inquiry” (p. 20). However, human responses “are definitely not cultural things,” (Harris, p. 22) but rather are the empirical events to which scientific operations must be applied to arrive at cultural classifications. Behavior analyst Baum (2000) stated, “culture consists of behavior andchrw(133) cultural change constitutes an evolutionary process” (p. 182).

At last: Serious consideration

For a long time, several natural phenomena have been considered unproblematically selection processes in the same sense of “selection.” In our target article we dealt with three of these phenomena: gene-based selection in biological evolution, the reaction of the immune system to antigens, and operant learning. We characterize selection in terms of three processes (variation, replication, and environmental interaction) resulting in the evolution of lineages via differential replication. Our commentators were largely supportive with respect to variation and environmental interaction but critical with respect to replication, in particular its appeal to information. With some reservations, our commentators think that our general analysis of selection may fit gene-based selection in biological evolution and the reaction of the immune system but not operant learning. If nothing else, this article shows that the notion of selection is not as straightforward as it may seem.

Units of Interaction, Evolution, and Replication: Organic and Behavioral Parallels

Organic and behavioral evolution both involve variation, selection, and replication with retention; but the individuals involved in these processes differ in the two kinds of evolution. In this paper, biological units of evolution, selection, and retention are compared with analogous units at the behavioral level. In organic evolution, natural selection operates on variations among organisms within a species, with the result of preserving in future generations of organisms those heritable characteristics that contributed to the organism’s survival and reproduction. Species evolve as characteristics of the population change as a result of past selection. Continuity in a lineage in the biosphere is maintained by replication of genes with retention of organismic characteristics across successive generations of organisms. In behavioral evolution, reinforcement operates on variations among responses within an operant, with the result of preserving in future responses those characteristics that resulted in reinforcement. Continuity in a behavioral lineage, within the repertoire of a given organism, appears to involve retention and replication, but the unit of retention and replication is unknown. We suggest that the locus of retention and replication is the nervous system of the behaving organism.

Maladaptive functional relations in client verbal behavior.

Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior is applied in this paper to several kinds of maladaptive behavior with which clinicians must deal. Lying, denial, and poor observing skills are discussed as defective tacting repertoires. Demanding and manipulative behaviors are mands that obtain immediate reinforcement at the expense of disrupting long-term interpersonal relations. Obsessing is runaway intraverbal behavior. Variables that enter into the maladaptive functional relations are examined.

Functions of the Environment in Behavioral Evolution

This paper explores some of the ways in which the environment functions with respect to behavior within an explanatory framework analogous to that of evolutionary biology. In both the behavioral and organic domains, the environment functions differently with respect to individual occurrences and evolutionary units. Within the behavioral domain, the problem of accounting for an occurrence of an operant instance differs from that of accounting for the existence of the operant unit of which the instance is a part. Maintaining these distinctions in levels of analysis within the behavioral domain, we focus first on operant units and operant instances as products of evolutionary processes occurring in the behavioral domain and second upon the causal role of the environment with respect to the existence of operant units and the occurrence of operant instances. The environment’s function is selective with respect to origin, maintenance, suppression, and extinction of behavioral populations. At the level of operant instances, the environment has instantiating functions—evocative or alterative. Evocative functions are exemplified by discriminative relations, and alterative functions include both conditional and motivative relations. Implications are considered regarding extension of the analogy to more complex behavior-environment relations.

Evocative and function-altering effects of contingency-specifiying stimuli

This study examined the effects of various forms of contingency-specifying stimuli (CSSs) on the compliance of 4-year-old children, and attempted to separate the evocative vs. function-altering functions of the CSSs. Each child was presented with a series of CSSs (one per day) that differed with respect to the deadline specified (immediate or delayed) and the consequence specified for performing the task. In the second part of the experiment, the CSSs either specified a delayed deadline or did not specify a deadline. Also, the consequences that were specified were either immediate or delayed. The results showed that under conditions where the opportunity to respond was immediately available, (a) CSSs that specified deadlines and immediate consequences exerted reliable control over behavior, and (b) deadlines, whether delayed or immediate exerted some control over the behavior, even when CSSs specified no consequences for task completion. Under conditions where the opportunity to respond was delayed, (a) CSSs of any kind were less likely to exert reliable control, and (b) children were most likely to respond when CSSs specified immediate consequences and made no mention of a deadline. Results are interpreted in terms of the role of CSSs as evocative and/or function-altering and in terms of deadlines as learned aversive conditions.

Windows on the 21st century.

Behavior analysis is a cultural system of which the Association for Behavior Analysis is a component cultural system. As cultural systems, they are composed of interlocking behavioral contingencies that constitute their cultural practices. Critical to the survival of both cultural systems is the frequency of interaction with and the nature of the content of the behavioral contingencies composing those cultural practices. The strengths of behavior analysis as a cultural system include its disciplinary character and its worldwide community of scientists and practitioners; its ability to be integrated into a scientific worldview; its track record in providing effective solutions to problems of importance to society; and the high levels of intellect, competence, and commitment that are characteristic of its participants. Weaknesses of behavior analysis are its status as an academic orphan, its relatively small size and its underdeveloped professional identity, and a lack of sociopolitical sophistication among many of its members. Behavior analysis will need to maximize its strengths and mitigate its weaknesses if it is to take advantage of the many opportunities available for growth in the modern world.

Some Reciprocal Roles between Behavior Analysis and Institutional Economics in Post-Darwinian Science

Behavior analysis and institutional economics are viewed as having common origins in the early 20th century effort to benefit from the conceptual revolution spurred by Darwin’s synthesis. Institutional economics, initiated by Thorstein Veblen, appears to have failed to develop a progressive scientific technology, while behavior analysis has done so. It is suggested that institutional economics has been held back by lack of a synthesizing scientific mechanism that elucidates the relation between technological and ceremonial processes, the two cultural forces described by Veblen. The theory of institutional economist C. E. Ayres, built on Veblen’s distinction, is used to clarify the concepts of technological and ceremonial processes for the reader. An analysis of the behavioral processes that might underlie the cultural processes described by Veblen/Ayres suggests that the experimental analysis of behavior has provided concepts that might function as a synthesizing mechanism for the social sciences and, in particular, institutional economics. The Veblen/Ayres dichotomy, now seen in terms of underlying behavioral processes, is used to examine the field of behavior analysis in terms of its origins, its relation to psychology and its current state. The paper concludes with a few practical suggestions as to how behavior analysts might work to enhance survival.