#verbal behaviour

Hi again

Not exactly.  The very basic survival value of covert behaviours are as the side effects of the consequences in our environment.  It was the experiences of pleasure or satisfaction we kept seeking through our behaviours while avoiding the things that caused us pain discomfort that helped us survive; pleasure and satisfaction coming from very basic necessities of live.  But I think covert behaviours’ survival values have evolved further by the fact that we can describe them; not that they existed so that we can describe them.  Because of that, we as humans are able to survive longer and with considerably less pain or consequences that shave away years of living.  Otherwise we would all have to go through the same trial and error of the things that potentially threaten our life and more of us wouldn’t make it. 

I’m not sure if fish experience pain (or pleasure) in the way we talk about pain. They must have life-sustaining signals and experiences that keep the species alive. In comparison to fish, however we have much more complex behaviour chains and an enriched environment to survive in because of our ability to tell stories, share experiences and provide rules for living.   

*As an aside, I’m also not so quick to assume fish don’t have their own form of verbal behaviour.  Who knows if and in what form it exists or how sophisticated it really is? 

A lot of what we still do comes down to accessing pleasure while avoiding pain and discomfort.  Our primary reinforcers can be categorized as one or the other.  Through hundreds of years of evolution and conditioning we have a larger repertoire and an enriched environment that provides us with those experiences, even when we don’t need them to survive - e.g., eating a doughnut brings be much pleasure but I don’t need doughnuts to survive. 

Now your second question…

Precurrent behaviours are those that we perform that make some other response (and its reinforcer) more effective (Polson & Parsons, 1994).   An example is when asked, “What’s for lunch?” we look at the menu to find out.  If we can successfully label what we see, we can then answer the question.  I suspect a lot of that labeling occurs covertly - i.e., privately within the person. 

When we take time to “find the answer”, to problem solve or “talk our way through” a series of steps we are engaging in precurrent behaviour.  There is a lot of verbal behaviour involved in those responses, some of which may occur as covert behaviour.  How many times have we counted the number of people coming over for dinner in our mind to then set the correct number of settings at the table?   Ever recite a phone number over and over in your head while you look for a place to write it down?  Precurrent and covert behaviour all at once. 

And they say behaviourism was too simple…

Hope this answers your questions.  If nothing else, it got my verbal (and precurrent) behaviour going.    

Cheers and R+

~ Tricia-Lee

References:

Well hey there anonymous and thanks for the thought-provoking question.  My answer probably won’t do the research and philosophy on this subject any justice but I am also going to try to keep things fairly simple for my non-behaviour analytic readers.

First a primer: covert behaviours are those that occur within the person. They are our sensations, emotions, thoughts.  They are private and only experienced by the person.  They cannot be observed by an outsider; though some medical tools do allow for measurement and monitoring.   

While covert behaviours cannot be seen, they are conceptualized by radical behaviourists as operating under the same principles of our overt behaviours - i.e., the behaviours that can be observed and measured.  For more details, please see my previous post on covert behaviours. 

Seeing covert behaviours as “just side effects” of other behaviours and consequences seems to indicate they have less value.  The sensations and emotions we experience become part of the learning - either conditioned with consequences or they become the motivation/antecedent event for the next behaviour.  When we started to ‘talk’ about these sensations and emotions, we gave ‘thought’ to them  (i.e., verbal behaviours). We were then able to share with others what we had learned. Others learned from our verbal behaviours what to do (i.e., to gain access to reinforcers) and what not to do (i.e., avoid punishers).  

Imagine the first person to discover that fire - while it produced heat and cooked food - burns the skin and that the burn hurts a lot. The next generation learned through the sharing of experiences that fire burns and can hurt.  In the presence of fire now come thoughts of “hurt” “pain” (or however it was described to them in the language/vocalizations/gestures of the time).  Their behaviour changes in order to avoid possibly being burned and experiencing the same fate.

Now imagine the first foragers learning which green leafy substance is a tasty and energy sustaining piece of food versus those that taste awful and cause stomach issues. In order to teach others what they have learned, they would have to note the sensations experienced with certain features of leaf; features requiring some kind of label.  They tell others what to bring back and what to leave on the ground.  

Due to today’s modern technologies and conveniences, it is hard to see the survival factor in many of our behaviours - whether overt or covert.  Yet, what we continue to do over time is seek out positive experiences and avoid negative ones.  We have so many things in our environment that bring us joy and pleasure outside of our basic reinforcers like food, heat, shelter etc.  They entertain us. They occupy our time (especially since we have to do very little to survive at this point). They allow us to be social - to give and to receive.  At the same time, we engage in plenty of behaviours that successfully avoid aversive consequences thanks to the rules handed down by our ancestors.  These rules and our environment have evolved over time because of the unfortunate experience of others before us. One only has to look at road signs and traffic control methods to see how we have learned to make a city move more efficiently yet safely at the same time.

[Image description: A white bankers (or file) box with ‘ABA journals & conferenc materials’ and ‘Office’ written on the lid of the box.] 

 Collaborating with speech language pathologists (SLPs) is often effective for understanding a person’s communication system and coming up with ways to enhance it.  Many of the students I support are non-vocal or have limited vocal speech. They may use signs, gestures, pictures or objects to communicate to others; and we may do the same when communicating with them.  SLPs and behaviour analysts often share the same goals: to increase communication; to provide for and teach methods/mediums for communication, to increase access to reinforcement delivered by the communication partner(s), etc.

My role in the collaborative partnership is often to assess function while looking for correspondence between the verbal behaviour of our learner and the “words” that are used.  We all have a number of words, gestures and drawings in our vocabulary.  HOW we verbally behave is less important than WHY or for what purpose?  Depending on the context, different “words” in our vocabulary can take on a different function. Because of our learning history with other vocal members of our community, words said are often words meant.  It is easy to presume the words used are the true communicative message.  My experience has taught me otherwise.

In one such collaboration we saw a student be presented with their tablet device to tell staff what they wanted.  The student was displaying early signs of agitation, distress following a loud event in the classroom and was trying to communicate something to us. They pressed various buttons in their communication board that corresponded to items available in the classroom. One at a time these items were delivered to the student and they were all rejected. Signs of frustration increased. We tried to reduce the communication effort by scaling back to a “yes/no” question (i.e., “Do you want...?) and offered a choice.  The “yes” that followed came with an intensity and urgency that staff responded by giving space. The item was left there but our student did not attend to it. The staff ultimately stopped asking the student questions. Eventually, signs of agitation decreased and the student later joined us at an activity.  A similar scenario would play out again.  

It took a few behaviour responses (i.e., interpretations) on our part but eventually we got to a possible function of the student’s communication during moments of loudness, followed by signs of upset and agitation.  Despite the “words” chosen, they did not want that corresponding item/activity; rather, they wanted us to leave them alone, give them space. The student was pressing buttons on their communication board hoping one of them would result in us leaving; the function: escape.

In discussion afterwards we planned ways to teach a “leave me alone” or “space please” response as part of the student’s communication systems.  Another function met and probably many more for us to understand.  

Don’t be fooled by the words people say; look instead to what’s happening before and after to truly understand the communicative intent - i.e., the function.  Words may fail but function always prevails.      

Related posts:  

Are you asking me or just saying?    

Good question anonymous!  I’m not certain that verbal and non-verbal behaviours do require a distinction.  At least, there does not have to a distinction in order for me to analyze the situation.  After all, verbal behaviour is behaviour (Skinner, 1974) and its function exists within its relationship to the environment. In the case of verbal behaviour, the function can be found within the social environment - i.e., the verbal community.

A distinction for verbal behaviour may have been made to counter against mentalism when attempting to explain language, communication and socialization among humans.  As radical behaviourists, we are still countering against them. Verbal behaviour as a concept offers an explanation for the exchanges between people; exchanges that are often not thought of as “behaviour”.  Until B.F. Skinner coined the term, how people acquired language was largely thought to be within the brain or mind of the person.  I would say this is still an on-going debate! 

So we may need the distinction between verbal and non-verbal behaviours for scholarly or conversational purposes; however, in the on-going analysis of why people do what they do (or say), it’s still just behaviour.

~ Tricia-Lee

Reference:

Skinner, B.F. (1974).  About behaviorism.  New York, NY: Random House.      

Related posts:

Watching my language!    

My husband is in the middle of making dinner and he approaches our liquor cabinet which is looking a little bare.  "We don't have any wine."

[Pause...I'm waiting to see where this is going]

He continues to stand there, smiling, looking at me, looking at the place where a bottle of wine might stand.  Eventually I say, "You'd like for me to get us some wine wouldn't you?"  And he says, "That would be great. We need it for the beef cheeks I am cooking."

Not a problem.  I walk to the nearest Wine Rack and purchase some bottles of red wine; one for dinner and one for me (thanks).

What we have above is what Skinner (1957) coined, an impure tact. I've written before about how a tact is one of our verbal operants whereby a person makes a comment or states what is happening in response to non-verbal stimulus.  Here, the liquor cabinet and the absence of wine evoked the response, "We don't have any wine".  However, an additional variable was also present in this scenario: my husband's motivation to have wine. So while the verbal behaviour of my husband may have looked like a tact, he was also making a request (Sundberg, 2004).  Requests in behaviour analytic terms is referred to as a mand (from the word, 'command' or 'demand'; Skinner, 1957). Mands are primarily controlled by motivation for something. 

Think of the impure tact as the passive aggressive ways in which we ask for things to happen or get done without really coming out and saying it. The "Honey, please...." exchanges, the subtle comments made about something we want dealt with.  

My husband responds to a few of my impure tacts:

There's a spider in the.....

I'm thirsty (while we're laying in bed about ready to go to sleep)

This box is heavy.

I'm sure you have some in your verbal repertoire too!  Got some examples to share?

References:

Skinner, B.F. (1957).  Verbal behavior.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sundberg, M.L (2004). Verbal behavior glossary.  Retrieved from: http://www.marksundberg.com/files/VerbalBehaviorGlossary.pdf 

Related Posts:

Watch My Language 

Hi @maltaisnoe and thanks for the ask!

I have written before about Behaviour Skills Training (BST).  It is a behavioural technology or tool that behaviour analysts and trainers can use to teach important skills; especially ones that we can’t always be around to guide or prompt someone through.  It is used often to teach safety skills (e.g, how to properly exit a building during a fire alarm), community skills (e.g., how to take transit or order a meal at a restaurant) and staff training (e.g., how to conduct preference assessments, how to administer CPR).

LRFFC (Listener responding function, feature, class) and IFFC (intraverbal function, feature, class) are a type of verbal behaviour operant that may get taught as part of early intervention or Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) program. It involves teaching a learner to respond to various instructions or answer questions based on function, feature or class.  It is through learning function, feature and class that concepts are shaped.  For example, from a picture array of school bus, duck and pencil we may ask our learner to identify:

the one that you write with (function; the answer being pencil)

the one that has wings (feature; the answer being duck)

the one that is a vehicle (class; the answer being school bus)

Behavioural Skills Training and LRFFC/IFFC are not similar.  The former being a tool to teach others and the latter being specific skills to teach. The only relation I could see between them is that a person like an instructor therapist or a teacher may receive Behavioural Skills Training in how to deliver LRFFC/IFFC programs.

Hope this helps clarify the two terms.

Verbal behaviour doesn’t just have to be spoken word.  It can be signs, gestures, written words or symbols.  The variants and discriminations made between them by the speaker are mediated by the community (i.e., the listener). In other words, the community shapes the vocabulary, dialect, grammar and gestures included as part of a language or culture.  We learn these from the generation before us.  At times we may slightly alter or vary our responses (think slang or other colloquialisms) which are also reinforced by our respective communities.