During my graduate seminar on Behavior Analysis this summer, Dr. Malott often discussed the term "Post-Modern Behavior Analysis." I'm pretty sure that Dr. Malott coined the term, because a wikipedia.org search turned up zero results, and I'm not aware of it's usage in a text book, research article, or presentation.
Post-Modern Behavior Analysis is an approach in which the behavior analyst applies interventions that are ultimately aimed to improve the quality of life of the individual, a group of individuals, or society, continuously and thoroughly. (Note: this definition is based off of Malott's lectures. I'm not taking credit; I just like talking about philosophy.)
What is so special about Post-Modern Behavior Analysis? The key terms are "continuously and thoroughly". Yesterday during my seminar on Behavior Analysis, one of my students asked me if it is common for behavioral interventions to include follow-ups, or maintenance procedures to make sure that the changes in the behavior are "permanent". And sadly, I had to answer "no". A majority of the interventions do not include this important element. Some scholarly journals now require that researchers do a 6-month follow-up. However, 6-months is a small period of time when you consider an entire life span of behavioral history.
A lot, if not most, of the articles published in scholarly journals in the field of behavior analysis are products of thesis or dissertation studies conducted by graduate students. It is very typical for a graduate student to enter an environment, make some wonderful changes, and then leave once the research has been completed. Often this research provides some wonderful insight on behavioral tools and technology. However, that technology is only as good as how it is implemented. Once the study is over, things always fall apart, and they go back to the way they once were. Making a temporary adjustment to a system does not provide a permanent solution to the problem. In order for the results of an intervention to maintain forever, the intervention must be maintained forever.
Some interventions may need 24/7 support, and some may only need to be checked on once every 10 years. However, it is the goal of the individual practicing Post-Modern Behavior Analysis to stick with the intervention until they are no longer physically able to do so. Even then, a thoroughgoing Post-Modern Behavior Analyst would set up a maintenance system to continue after they die, ensuring that all possible measures have been taken to keep the intervention/system in place.
Here's an example: at age 2 an individual is given the "autism" label. The student enters a special-education school and is provided with quality discrete trial training based on the principles of behavior. As the student progress through the educational system, a trained behavior analyst follows them every step of the way, constantly applying new and improved behavioral interventions that improve the quality the student's life. After the student graduates, the behavior analyst stays in touch with the individual, making changes and modifications as needed. According to Malott, if it so happens that an article is published in a scholarly journal, or a presentation or behavioral tool is designed, this is "icing on the cake".
Note that Post-Modern Behavior Analysis is purely a practitioner's model. Rigorous, experimental research is not normally conducted by practitioners. I don't foresee experimental researchers practicing this philosophical approach (although I'd be very pleased if someone could prove me wrong because this would only strengthen the philosophy).
The "ultimate intervention" is one that maintains itself forever. We must strive to create the ultimate intervention if we are to achieve the ultimate goal of Behavior Analysis: To save the world with Behavior Analysis.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Post-Modern Behavior Analysis
at
8:17 PM
·
Labels: Post-Modern Behavior Analysis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"The ultimate goal of behavior analysis is to save the world with behavior analysis"? Perhaps, as a foundation and precursor to attempting to save the world, behavior analysis ought to make broad and definitive strides in terms of saving itself.
Behavior analysis has been around for at least 50-60 years generating, arguably, limited impact within the field of psychology as a whole --- an impact predicated primarily upon its work with the developmentally disabled and the autistic --- not insignificant populations --- but certainly not populations representative of the adult "norm", i.e. individuals with anatomically correct, fully functioning cerebral cortex who manifest "high" levels of language development.
Yet, who but a radical behaviorist would proclaim that the goal of applied behavior analysis is to save the world?
Before you go reaching for the stars, make sure you can stand up on your own two feet.
Why is it that the focus of applied behavior analysis, with certain exceptions like smoking cessation, weight reduction, and similarly “straightforward” behaviors, rarely is on “normal”, as defined above, adults? You know, the people who are often treated by traditional clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and or social workers for conditions labeled as, for example, “Depressive Disorder”, “Generalized Anxiety Disorder”, etc. Could it be for the following reasons, among others: (1). behavior analysis, limited by its self-imposed circumscriptions, falls hopelessly and desperately short in terms of accounting for and modifying private events and so-called covert behaviors (enter cognitive behavioral therapy), and (2). even if a behavior analyst was omnipresent from a child’s birth on, s/he could not control all of the variables that could potentially and actually affect the individual’s behavior. Since conditioning is known to occur in the womb, even omnipresence right after birth might not fulfill the mission.
Let’s take a grandfather of 50 years old, a former womanizer, who stills harbors thoughts of meeting attractive, younger women. One day, his wife tells him to take their grandson to the lake for a walk. He views this venture with mixed blessings; he really would rather stay home and watch the football game, then again, there are some babes by the lake, and, who knows, he might meet one. Then, he thinks that he really should grow out of these “immature” thoughts, that he’s an old and married man, but that he will take his grandson to the lake anyway because his grandson will enjoy it. His behavior of taking his grandson to the lake has multiple functions, many of which, are in his head and not accessible to others unless he accurately delineates them and chooses to tell others. In fact, there may be other functions which affect his behavior which he has not or could not attend to and report to others.
Notwithstanding the rich, but inveterately unproven theories advanced by Skinner to account for all of the variables possibly affecting this man, can you, as an applied behavior analyst, on any given occasion, working strictly with measurable behaviors that have high inter-observer reliability, with 100% certainty (all right, 60% certainty) accurately predict whether this man will take his son to the lake?
And you’re going to save the world?
The mission of "saving the world with behavior analysis" is a pipe dream. However, a mission statement of this sort is necessary as we fulfill our humanitarian obligations. Because a mission is not achievable does not make it unacceptable or ludicrous to consider.
"Behavior analysis has been around for at least 50-60 years generating, arguably, limited impact within the field of psychology as a whole --- an impact predicated primarily upon its work with the developmentally disabled and the autistic --- not insignificant populations --- but certainly not populations representative of the adult "norm", i.e. individuals with anatomically correct, fully functioning cerebral cortex who manifest "high" levels of language development."
I suggest you take a peek at the research surrounding organizational behavior management, child rearing, drug abuse, systems analysis, traffic safety, productivity, exercise, self-management, etc and make note of the influential impact of ABA.
And I agree that it's impossible to account for all variables/be in control 100% of the time. However, the more control we have, the more order we will see, and the more likely we are to save the world :-)
I don't feel as if I am doing harm by striving to obtain the "unobtainable".
"there may be other functions which affect his behavior which he has not or could not attend to and report to other"
You can't discredit behavior analysis by saying "oh, we're not aware of the variables that control our own behavior, so they must not be in control after all" or "since we cannot identify them ourselves, they must not exist." If you went through your life identifying every outcome that controlled your behavior, you would probably have a hard enough time getting out of bed and brushing your teeth before the sun goes down. Private and public events are considered "behavior", and they produce outcomes that influence it's future frequency. It's much more difficult to measure covert behavior, but the same principles apply.
“The mission of "saving the world with behavior analysis" is a pipe dream. However, a mission statement of this sort is necessary as we fulfill our humanitarian obligations. Because a mission is not achievable does not make it unacceptable or ludicrous to consider”.
A mission statement such as the one that you’ve advanced, an unachievable pipe dream as you’ve described it, does, in fact, make it ludicrous to consider. Additionally, it may be construed by many, were they to read it, as an arrogant statement that could contribute to the further isolation of the proponents of Radical Behaviorism and Applied Behavior Analysis. These proponents seem to me to be a philosophically incestuous group reporting their research, for the most part, in their own journals like JABA and The Behavior Analyst Today. Why is that? If these proponents desire to “spread the word” and change the world, perhaps a more modest mission statement combined with increased cooperation with those who favor differing views might be worthwhile.
“I suggest you take a peek at the research surrounding organizational behavior management, child rearing, drug abuse, systems analysis, traffic safety, productivity, exercise, self-management, etc and make note of the influential impact of ABA”.
What is an “influential impact”? Surely, I have seen ABA research in the areas that you’ve described, but I hardly think that the applied behavior analysis approach is the preeminent or even major approach utilized in these areas of study. It’s really the same old song and dance, isn’t it, i.e., the contingencies of reinforcement applied to different populations. A thorough perusal of the literature in the areas cited above will quickly reveal to the interested reader that applied behavior analysis is hardly the methodology of choice in many, if not most, of the areas above. Take addictions as an example and look at your “average” drug treatment center. Is it using ABA? More likely than not, it’s using the medical model. To a lesser extent, maybe ideas spun off from Marlatt’s work. So, now tell me that ABA works better. Of course, I’d expect you to say that. But, why then, I ask, is it not utilized more broadly?
“And I agree that it's impossible to account for all variables/be in control 100% of the time. However, the more control we have, the more order we will see, and the more likely we are to save the world. The more control that is had, the more order there will be”.
Strike a blow for totalitarianism. Your statement sounds like its right out of “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”. You know, the book that had its major positive impact on that philosophically incestuous group that had already subscribed to Skinner’s theories. For the rest of us, it was and is a symbol of an impotent extrapolation from studies of lower animals. First of all, according to Skinner, there is always control; where there are living things, it’s omnipresent. It’s just a question of whom and/or what are the “controlling agents”. And, I suppose, in your world, that would be the applied behavior analysts? But, what have the applied behavior analysts shown us that they can do with control? Relatively little, it seems, in the grand scheme of the field of psychology. Their pitiful attempts at few-and-far-between Walden 2-like communities were and are, for the most part, failures. Their techniques have been shown to be useful in regard to certain behaviors of pigeons, rats, the developmentally disabled, and the autistic , but much less so in “fully functioning” human populations (again, applied behavior analysts haven’t been able to and likely never will be able to effectively deal with private events and covert behaviors --- an insurmountable limitation, in my opinion). One other point. Tell me, do you apply the principles of a scientific analysis of behavior to your own waking life consistently throughout the day, day-after-day, without fail? If not, why not? Talking that talk, but not walking that walk is o.k. for you, right, but not for others? My point? Many applied behavior analysts, in my experience, are extremely poor role models in terms of exemplifying the very behaviors that they would ask others to exemplify.
“I don't feel as if I am doing harm by striving to obtain the ‘unobtainable’”.
Of course you don’t.
“You can't discredit behavior analysis by saying "oh, we're not aware of the variables that control our own behavior, so they must not be in control after all" or "since we cannot identify them ourselves, they must not exist." If you went through your life identifying every outcome that controlled your behavior, you would probably have a hard enough time getting out of bed and brushing your teeth before the sun goes down. Private and public events are considered "behavior", and they produce outcomes that influence it's future frequency. It's much more difficult to measure covert behavior, but the same principles apply”.
First of all, private events and what Skinner described as “covert behavior”, conditions which cannot by definition be identified by others outside of oneself, are assumed to be behavior. On what demonstrable and substantial research basis is this assumption made? As an applied behavior analyst, do you have convincing, measurable proof that these conditions are behavior, or are you just spouting the “company line” as espoused by Skinner’s theory? You say that the same principles apply to these conditions as they do to overt behavior, but you cannot prove to a reasonable skeptic the “nature” of these conditions. How, then, can you go onto say, with any reasonable credibility, that the same principles apply? Worse yet, even if the same principles do apply, you, as a behavior analyst, are hamstrung and can’t or won’t do a damn thing about it because they’re inside the black box.
Well, I haven't read "Beyond Freedom and Dignity", but I'm flattered that you think I have. I've only read Science and Human behavior, but only as an undergraduate (aka I really didn't read it). So I can't be held accountable for sounding like Skinner. Plus, there have been thousands of other behavior analysts since Skinner, but for some reason, opponents of behavior analysis only seem to rag on Skinner.
As far as covert behavior is concerned, you have to take a look at your definition of "behavior". If you agree that "thinking" is, in fact, behavior, then the same rules apply. That's how we draw the connection. There is much research on rule governed behavior that demonstrates how science has been able to use covert thoughts to control behavior. If you conclude that thinking is not behavior, then obviously the same rules don't apply. However, I think it's naive to conclude that thinking is not behavior.
"However, I think it's naive to conclude that thinking is not behavior".
In a field of study of human behavior that tries to liken itself to the hard sciences such as physics, data are important. How do you directly measure the nature of thoughts and where are the data supporting your contention that thoughts are behavior? I'm guessing that you want to believe that thoughts are behavior because such thinking on your behalf fits the model that you've invested so much time, energy, and, perhaps, money in. Now, that's what I call naive.
I've posted on your blog in an effort to provoke some open-mindedness on your behalf. I've been where you are in the indoctrination process as it pertains to Radical Behaviorism/Skinnerian psychology being the one and only Gospel. Believe me, it's not. Take a look at the current research interests of hard-core and highly published former Skinnerians such as Nathan Azrin, Alan Kazdin, and even Steven C. Hayes. You'll see that they've strayed from the confines of strict Skinnerian theory because, quite frankly, it is too constrictive, out-of-whack with reality, and outdated. Skinner's theory, although a revelation in his time, has lost much of its luster. Hayes has commented that, "I shudder every time I see a course on 'Verbal Behavior' using Skinner's book. The text is nearly half a century old. Something is seriously amiss when a scientific area can use a 50 year old text as if it is current". (The Behavior Analyst, Volume 2, Number 2).
Well it's unfortunate that you feel my entire academic career is one of naive intentions. However, I invite you to attend one of the lectures, practica, or seminars at my university. You will learn some great stuff, and you will probably enjoy yourself :-)
Matt,
I'm not condemning your entire academic career. In fact, I believe that the knowledge developed through learning the philosophy of Radical Behaviorism/Skinner's theory and their applications is powerful.
Just not the whole answer.
I've attended numerous seminars and lectures by some of the most highly respected Skinnerians in the field including Malott, Michael, Critchfield, Sidman, etc.
You might want to consider attending seminars and lectures by others who are not Skinnerians --- you know, just for a well-rounded perspective. I doubt you'll get much opportunity to do that in WMU's Psychology Department.
Anyway, take care and good luck in your career.
Post a Comment