Skinners Analysis of Self-editing 2006

8/6/2019 Skinners Analysis of Self-editing 2006

1/51

I Shouldnt Have Opened my Big Mouth:

Skinners Analysis of Self-Editing

Mark L. Sundberg

[email protected]

B.F. Skinner Memorial Address

18th Annual Conference

of theInternational Society for Behaviorology

March 18-20, 2006


2/51

Do you know anyone who emits verbal

behavior that is

Obnoxious

Offensive

Loud

Incoherent

Socially inappropriate

Punishing to the listener

Rambling

Confusing to the listener

Uncontrolled intraverbalbehavior

Manding for irrelevant or

odd information

Just useless tacts ofcommonplace stimuli

Dominating a

conversation

Endlessly digressing

Excessively manding on

the listener


3/51

Do you know speakers who...

Put their foot in their

mouths

Cant get their words out Cant tie their thoughts

together

Dont listen to others

Spoil the point of a joke Have an opinion on

everything

Lose their train of

thought

Forget what they aretalking about

Never get to the point

Cant explain what they

mean

Never shut up


4/51

Skinners (1957) Analysis of

Self-Editing

Skinner devoted three chapters in Verbal Behaviorto self-editing(Chapters 15, 16, 17).

The formulation is inherently practical and suggests immediate

technological applications at almost every step (p. 12).

Verbal responses are described and manipulated by the speakerwith appropriate autoclitics which augment and sharpen the effectupon the listener. They are also often examined for their effectupon the speaker or prospective listener, and then either rejectedor released. This process of editing is an additional activity ofthe speaker (Skinner, 1957, p. 369).


5/51

The Rejection of Verbal Behavior

A response which has been emitted in overt form

may be recalled or revoked by an additional

response (p. 369). Subvocal behavior can, of course, be revoked

before it has been emitted audibly (p. 370).

Much of the self-stimulation required in the

autoclitic description and composition of verbal

behavior seems to occur prior to even subaudible

emission (p. 371).


6/51

The Rejection of Verbal Behavior

In both written and vocal behavior changes are made

on the spur of the moment and so rapidly that we

cannot reasonably attribute them to actual review ofthe covert forms (p. 371).

The subject is a difficult one because it has all the

disadvantages of private stimulation (p. 371).


7/51

Why Behavior is Rejected?

A speaker usually rejects a response because it

has been punished (p. 371).


8/51

Why Verbal Behavior is Punished?

Verbal behavior may be objectionable to thelistener simply as noise (p. 373).

Verbal behavior is frequently punished becauseof deficient stimulus control (p. 373).

Verbal behavior is usually punished--if only byits ineffectiveness--when it is under poor audience

control (p. 374). Verbal behavior may be automatically self-

punishing (p. 375).


9/51

The Effects of Punishment

Concealing the identity of the speaker (p. 377).

Recession to the covert level (p. 377).

Talking to ones self (p. 377).

Disguised speech (pp. 377-378).


10/51

The Autoclitics of Editing

One form of editing which involves an obvious

process of review and revision consists of emitting

the response but qualifying it with an autocliticwhich reduces the threat of punishment (p. 377).


11/51

The Autoclitics of Editing

If all ones verbal responses were invariably

reinforced, one would be almost constantly

occupied with verbal behavior (p. 380). The process of editing generated by punishment

greatly increases the appropriateness of verbal

behavior to all features of an occasion, including

the audience (p. 380).


12/51

Positive Consequences

The automatic reinforcement of verbal behavior

also plays a role in the process of editing (p.

380). Many other positive consequences come into

play when verbal behavior is produced to satisfy

specifications (p. 381).


13/51

Skinners Summary of Self-Editing

The production of raw verbal behavior following theprinciples outlined in Parts II and III comes first.Autoclitic responses or activities (Part IV) then occur. Theresulting behavior may not immediately reach the ultimatelistener. Because of punishment of other behavior it may

be held up for review by the speaker or writer. Changesoccur in the act of review which lead to rejection, toemission in a qualified form, or full-fledged emission.Often the process is not complete until the speaker hasresorted to other activities to produce alternative forms ofresponses (Chapter 17) (p. 382).


14/51

Special Conditions of Self-Editing

Verbal behavior is not always subject to the reviewdiscussed in the last chapter. Some variables are too

powerful to wait for editing (p. 384).

Defective feedback (p. 384). Defective self-observation (pp. 385-386).

Defective responses to controlling variables (pp. 386-388).

Automatic verbal behavior (pp. 388-390).


15/51

Self-Strengthening of Verbal Behavior

In the process of composition and editing the

speaker arranges, qualifies, withholds, or releases

verbal behavior which already exists in somestrength in his repertoire (p. 403).


16/51

Techniques

Manipulating stimuli (p. 405-410).

Self-prompts, self-probes, change the audience

Changing the level of editing (p. 410). Mechanical production of verbal behavior (p. 411)

Changing motivation and emotional variables (p. 412).

Incubation (p. 413).

Production and editing (p. 414-415).

Building new verbal responses (415-417).


17/51

An Application of Skinners Analysis of Self-Editing:

Four Types of Self-Editing Problems

There are multiple variables involved in self-editing

and it is perhaps one of the most complex types of

verbal behavior.

There are different contingencies in effect for the

many different examples of unedited verbal behavior

presented by Skinner (1957).

A functional analysis of verbal behavior (Chapter 1)can be used to identify the different contingencies


18/51

Caring

One type of history and current EO results in what

might be identified as a speaker who cares about

appropriate and effective verbal behavior reaching

a specific listener.


19/51

Caring

Caring can be defined as:

Behavior evoked, in part, by an EO involving ahigh value of positive listener responses to verbal

behavior due to a particular conditioning history.For example, a speaker who teaches parents basic

behavior modification cares about the way hislisteners react to his verbal behavior because he

has a strong EO for producing certain positiveeffects on the listener due to his conditioninghistory.


20/51

Not caring

Some speakers emit socially inappropriate or

ineffective verbal behavior as a result of their

particular conditioning history and their currentEOs. These speakers may be classified as not

caring about their verbal behavior producing

positive effects on a specific listener.


21/51

Not caring

Not caring can be defined as:

Behavior evoked by an EO related to a high

value of negative listener reaction due to aspecific conditioning history, or verbal

behavior evoked by a discriminative stimulus,

without an EO variable related to positive

listener reaction, also due to a particularconditioning history.


22/51

Not caring

For example, a speaker who emits racial slurs

doesnt care about a positive reaction from the

targeted listener, but may care about the listener

reaction from a group of peers. The person of a

different race and the presence of a peer group

may be stimuli in the presence of which particular

responses have a history of reinforcement.


23/51

Not caring

The EO related to this reinforcement may be

strong at that particular moment (e.g., the person

wants to impress his peers now perhaps because of

earlier behavior suggesting he was not aggressive

enough to be part of the group). It is also possible

that the speaker is reinforced by the negative

reaction of the listener to whom the slur is

directed.


24/51

Aware

A speaker who can and does tact his own verbal

behaviors, the sources of control for his verbal

behavior, and a listeners response to his behavior,may be classified as being aware of the effects

of his verbal behavior on listeners.


25/51

Aware defined by Skinner:

We are aware of what we are doing when we candescribe the topography of our behavior. We areaware of why we are doing it when we describe the

relevant variables, such as the important aspects ofthe occasion of the reinforcement (Skinner, 1969,p. 244).

For example, an aware speaker may tact the fact that

listeners are looking away from him and attendingto other stimuli, he may then engage in certain typesof self-editing that may alter the listener behavior.


26/51

Unaware

Some speakers, however, do not tact the

contingencies related to their verbal behavior and

are not under good audience stimulus control.These speakers may be classified as being

unaware of the effects of their verbal behavior.


27/51

Unaware can be defined as:

The failure to tact ones own behavior and the

variables of which it is a function.

For example, a person who has consumed largeamounts of alcohol may fail to tact the fact that his

verbal behavior is loud, offensive, and socially

inappropriate. In addition, the typical consequences

(e.g., social punishment) which reduce theprobability of such behavior under other

circumstances (e.g., when sober) are ineffective.


28/51

Self-Editing Classification Table

Table 1 presents four types of self-editing

problems based on the classification presented

above. Speakers can be classified as: aware and caring

unaware and caring

aware and not caring

unaware and not caring


29/51


30/51

Aware and Caring:

Weak Verbal Repertoires

Intraverbal sequences that

are hard to follow

Mands for irrelevant or

odd information

Not getting to the point

Forgetting lost my train

of thought

Inability to explain what

I mean

Does not articulate well

Illogical sequences of

ideas

Incompleteness

Confusing to the listener

Soft spoken

Rambling Stuttering


31/51


32/51

Analysis of Aware and Caring

These speakers have an EO to be effective and know that

they are often not good speakers. This weak repertoire

may produce emotional by-products often identified as low

self-esteem, shyness, low self concept, or social phobias,lack of confidence, or have personal interaction problems.

They may emit defensive verbal behavior such as Im not

making myself clear or I know Im not saying this well.


33/51


These speakers may avoid verbal contact

altogether or over-edit their verbal behavior to the

point where the rate of verbal behavior isextremely low. These speakers want to improve

their verbal repertoires and have often tried

several ways. They are aware of their failure as

evidenced by statements such as Im not makingsense. They may engage in too much editing.


34/51


These speakers may have a history involving too

much punishment, and not enough reinforcement.

Their EO for effective verbal behavior is strong. Their basic intraverbal repertoire and self-editing

repertoire may be weak or defective.


35/51

Intervention

Of the four different groups presented in this classification, this

group seems to be the most likely to seek treatment, and to have a

successful treatment outcome. Intervention strategies are plentiful.

Skinner (1957, pp. 405-417) describes several techniques forteaching a willing participant to edit their own verbal behavior.

For example, the Toastmasters organization is designed to shape

public speaking skills in a forgiving and nonaversive environment.

The basic goal is to allow a speaker to practice emitting carefully

edited verbal behaviors.


36/51

Intervention

A person who has been made aware of himself

is in a better position to predict and control his

own behavior (Skinner, 1974, p. 31). However, Sustained awareness can be a

disadvantage. There is no reason why we should

scrutinize every response we make, or examine

every occasion upon which we respond (Skinner,1969, p. 245).


37/51

Unaware and Caring:

High Rate of Trivial Verbal Behavior

Uncontrolled intraverbal

behavior in the form of idle

chatter

Useless tacting ofcommonplace stimuli

High rate of mands

Dominates a conversation

Never shuts up

Too loud a voice Exaggerating

Excessive repetition

A rasping tone

Undue sibilance

Heavy alliteration

Heavy use of clichs

Singsong

Too obvious

Too commonplace

Shopworn

Lots of bad jokes


38/51

An Analysis of the Causes of

Unaware but Caring

Insufficient punishment history

Differential reinforcement history

MO for listener attention

Automatic reinforcement Defective audience control

Defective stimulus control

Failure to tact own behavior

W

eak listener repertoires Strong intraverbal and mand repertoires

Failure to emit appropriate autoclitics


39/51


Unaware but Caring

Typically, punishment reduces this behavior (Skinner, 1957),but there may not be enough punishment along with too muchdifferential reinforcement, and a strong EO for attention.

They may be automatically reinforced by their own verbal

behavior (they like to hear their own voice). They may have weak listener repertoires, or weak EOs for the

other persons point of view, areas of interest, or EOs.

They may fail to tact the effects of their VB on their listeners,hence fail to emit the appropriate autoclitic behavior of self-

editing behavior to decrease the aversive effects of their VB.

All of these variables may combine to evoke an excessiveamount of verbal behavior (the person just wont shut up).


40/51

Intervention

This population may not seek treatment because they are unaware thatthere is a problem, but intervention could be quite successful.

Skinner suggests a potential intervention strategy for this group. A merereduction of the relative frequency ofreinforcement would reduce this

activity, but probably not to a reasonable level. The process ofextinctionas employed in discrimination, brings verbal behavior under appropriatestimulus control, but the conditions under which verbal behavior isreinforced are so extensive and so confusing that something more isprobably needed. The process of editing generated bypunishmentgreatly increase the appropriateness of verbal behavior to all features of

an occasion, including the audience (p. 380).


41/51

Aware and Uncaring

Offensive

Obnoxious

Hurtful

Angry Negative

Prejudice, racist,

sexist, etc.

Socially inappropriate

Loud

Lying

Cursing Generally punishing to

the listener

Gives something away

Spoils the point of ajoke


42/51


Aware and Not Caring

Insufficient punishment history

Insufficient reinforcement history

Excessive punishment history

Differential reinforcement history

EO for negative listener effects

Weak EOs for socially appropriate VB

Automatic reinforcement

Socially defective audience control


43/51


44/51

Intervention

Speakers who emit this type of verbal behaviorprobably do not seek treatment because they donot feel as if anything is wrong.

They see the problem as being in the listener whocant take a joke or is a wimp.

Therefore, it may be quite difficult to change thisbehavior because of the difficulty to control therelevant contingencies.


45/51

Unaware and Uncaring

DD, MI, Drugs and Alcohol

Illogical rambling

Incoherent, mumbling

Delusional Self-talk

Far-fetched intraverbal sequences... flight of

ideas

Odd mands


46/51


47/51


Unaware and Not Caring

Speakers who emit this type of unedited verbalbehavior dont care if they offend their listeners.

They dont care about the effects of their verbalbehavior on others.

The dont tact their own verbal behavior or thecontrolling variables.

They may largely be their own listeners in thatthey are automatically reinforced by their ownverbal behavior.


48/51

Intervention

With the exception of children and some DD

individuals, this group is not very susceptible to

intervention.

Punishment is probably ineffective with this

population.


49/51

Conclusions

Self-Editing is one step beyond the autoclitic. It

is the highest form of verbal behavior (Michael,

1974). Punishment seems to be the main independent

variable responsible for shaping self-editing.

Of course reinforcement also plays a role, as well

as EOs, stimulus control, automatic andintermittent reinforcement, and the other

behavioral principles.


50/51

Conclusions

Self-editing involves not only the concepts of the

basic elementary operants, but multiple control,

autoclitics, automatic reinforcement, privateevents, and thinking. This seems to reflect the

heart of radical behaviorism.

Skinner provides several self-editing techniques

that should be developed into an interventionpackage.


51/51

Conclusion

Self-Editing is one step beyond the autoclitic. It

is the highest form of verbal behavior (Michael,

1974). Punishment seems to be the main independent

variable responsible for shaping self-editing.

Of course reinforcement also plays a role, as well

as EOs, stimulus control, automatic andintermittent reinforcement, and the other

behavioral principles.

Documents

Skinners Analysis of Self-editing 2006