I am writing this post while still in my pajamas. I have to be honest in saying I have done very little today to demonstrate that I have adaptive skills. My teeth got brushed and I pressed the button on our Tassimo to make myself a cup of coffee. Otherwise I spent most of today sitting or laying down on a couch.
I now know why New Years Day is a day to do nothing. It is the first data point of 2013 and it can only get better from here. Today might have been my lowest data point, but overall activity levels while on Christmas break have been stable at low. We’ll call this period my baseline. Tomorrow there will be more on my to-do list. I’ll gradually increase my activity levels, do a bit more each day, get more done etc. Then we’ll introduce a phase change line labelled, ‘back to work’ and continue to monitor my activity levels on my new schedule.
2013 is gearing up to be a busy year: I am working to finish my BCBA supervised hours; still figuring my way around the expectations of my not-so-new-anymore job; developing course outlines and curriculum for a potential behaviour technician diploma program; and planning a wedding. Somewhere in between all of that there will be physical activity, baking, reading for personal enjoyment and hopefully, more blog posting on the everyday behaviour analytic events in our lives.
I may have started off this year with very little of a bang - more like a whisper. But in that whisper are thoughts of care and well-being for all of my family, friends, colleagues and you, my readers and on-line community. May we all be on our best behaviours this year!
~ Tricia-Lee
Bring dishwasher to sink
Attach water hose to end of faucet
Turn on the hot water tap
Pull cord and plug in dishwasher
Open dishwasher and place dishwasher detergent in the dispenser
Close dishwasher
Turn on
Go to bed and wake up in the morning to clean dishes!
…except I missed a crucial step in this behaviour chain (highlighted above) and woke up to stinky, dried-on-foot-bits dishes. I completed a task analysis of setting up the dishwasher and recalled that last night, I completed the steps above out of order. This one time, I placed the detergent in before I brought the dishwasher to the sink and I plugged in the power cord before I attached the water hose. Seems like small variations to the chain of behaviours I have practiced many times before but it was enough to change my behaviours and thus, the consequence (i.e., outcome).
It made me realize (again) how dependent I am on cues in the environment to respond one way and get a job done. A behaviourist does not have to be convinced of that. More, this example demonstrates that there was no “thought to” what I was doing. I responded to the salient cues for some of the behaviours but other behaviour cues got missed. There was no “forgetting”; just responding and not responding.
We’re quick to blame our minds when something goes ‘wrong’. In this case, I blame the dishwasher.
Motivating Operation: Thirsty, and I have not had a latte in some time.
Discriminative Stimulus: Starbucks employee at the cash register.
Behaviour: I line up then order my grande extra-hot, 1/2 sweet, no whipped ginger bread latte.
Consequence: Someone else makes my drink and hands it to me for me to enjoy (positive reinforcement).
This contingency occurred to me yesterday as I was waiting for my drink to be made. There were others ahead of me also waiting for their drink. A man and his son entered the Starbucks and then presumably, seeing a line of people, stood behind me. He and his son discussed what they wanted to drink, anticipating their turn. Orders were being called out and one by one people approached the counter to take their drinks. I then noticed the puzzled look on the man face as no one was taking his order. I turned to the man and said, "I think you order with the gentleman over there by the register and then your drink gets made here." He and his son proceeded to the register. When I consider the discriminative stimulus for any behaviour, I look for the specific detail(s) as the possible signals for reinforcement. We learn to attend to and discriminate these details and their variations as well (without much thought I might add). Many of us have learned that in a fast food setting, lining up where others are lined up is likely to lead to a chance to place and receive your order. In a Starbucks however, there is more to ordering than just looking for a line-up of people. To be more specific, it is the line-up at the cash register, not the drink counter, that signals our drink will get made if we order there first. Anyone new to a Starbucks has not yet learned this behaviour. A few verbal or visual prompts later and someone is learning to order the 'Starbucks' way. This is just one example from a response class - i.e., variations of a behaviour that all result in the effect; in this case, receiving food or drink. Depending on where we are, the behaviour of ordering a meal or a drink looks slightly different. There's the 'Harvey's' way, the 'Dairy Queen' way, the drive-through way etc, all cued by different details in the environment. It may seem like an insignificant behaviour, but now think of all the other response classes we have learned and how our behaviours have evolved by our ever-changing environment. It makes labeling all of the 4-term contingencies an infinite goal!
“He knows better.” ”She knows what she is doing.”
I come across this phrase or its variations a fair bit in my work. I hear it when people describe their confusion or frustration with another person’s behaviour or lack thereof. When I ask, “How do you know s/he knows?”, the answers are along the lines of, “Well, we talked about this before.”, “He can tell me what the rules are.” or they cite the person’s abilities in other skill areas.
With a statement made about “knowing better”, comes an assumption that simply ‘knowing’ what to do translates into actually doing. It also implies that the person is willfully choosing to act or not do something a certain way; going against the rule or what they supposedly already know in their mind. It places the responsibility in the person’s mind, neglecting to consider the environmental and social influences that may be at work, including our own behaviours.
B.F. Skinner (1974) suggested that to ‘know’ something is itself a behaviour; separate from the behaviour of actually doing. I know that 250 ml is equal to a cup. I can tell you that 250 ml is equal to a cup and I can measure 250 ml of water when a recipe calls for a cup. All of those scenarios are themselves different behaviours - each with their own contingencies. In my example what I can say, I can also do. This is not always the case.
An alcoholic “knows better” than to drink an entire bottle of vodka but he or she continues to do so day in and day out. As a driver, I can tell you what the speed limit on the highway is and yet I still find myself driving over the limit. We’ve been told many times to avoid high fat, high calorie food and drink and yet we indulge. Why? Because the environment we find ourselves in (physically, socially, emotionally) is at times set up to permit or induce these behaviours - i..e, undesirable or “bad for you” behaviours are reinforced. At the same time, the environment may lack the necessary contingencies that make the more desirable behaviour possible. If we don’t seek to find out what these competing contingencies are and plan something different, we may always have this discrepancy between ‘knowing’ and doing.
People can think the thought. They may be able to talk the talk, but are they set up to walk the walk?
Reference:
Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York, NY: Random House.
Related Posts:
The Blame Game
Knowing What We Feel
Is she smelling her food? Because I smell my food too.
It is always interesting when I start working or hanging out with new people and they notice this quirk about me. It is a behaviour I have done most of my life. So much so, I don’t even notice until someone has caught me and has a look of wonder on their face.
What is she doing?
I am sensitive to varying tastes in my food and anything that smells the slightest bit off is banned from going in my mouth. You cannot convince me the food is safe. Here’s what I’ve learned: if the food item smells acceptable, then that serves as the go-ahead for me to eat. It is the signal that reinforcement in the form of “good taste” is likely. On the other hand, if the food smells kinda funky, I don’t eat it. Here, it signals that punishment in the form of bad taste (or worse) is likely.
Smelling my food is a survival behaviour that has been finely tuned and reinforced over the years. No offence intended to the many wonderful cooks in my life!
(via reveurconstant-deactivated20121)
An interesting campaign aimed at getting people to put down that soda bottle. Do you think this is enough to change the behaviour of consuming too much soda?
My thoughts: a campaign is only one piece of the behavioural contingencies involved in selecting and consuming soft drinks. Campaigns such as this should also be implemented at the same time that public policy looks at one or more of the following factors:
1. Prevention by altering access.
If soft drinks are on display in your cafeteria or stored in your fridge at home, you are already one step into the behaviour chain because the discriminative stimulus (Sd) is present. Re-arranging public’s access to soda (the stimulus) is one way to change consumption behaviour. I know some school districts have barred soft drink companies from selling their products in schools. This is a start. How about other options when purchasing out of home food/meals? Will fast food restaurants ever advertise their combos with glass of milk or a fruit smoothie?
2. Teach a replacement behaviour
If soda is consumed as an everyday beverage, then people also need education on what a suitable replacement beverage could be. This replacement beverage must be readily available while also be reinforcing from a caloric and taste dimension. Otherwise, people will resort to what they do best: consume soft-drinks.
3. Arrange economic consequences
Soda is generally cheaper than other beverages that hold nutritional value. Better for you beverages have a higher response cost and therefore will be consumed less often if one’s finances are factored into the response. If consuming the cheaper drink is reinforced (i.e., tastes good and costs less), people are more likely to repeat the same behaviour in a similar situation. Therefore, healthier beverage options must come down in price (French, 2003) or soft drinks must increase in price.
What I just presented is the beginning of a behaviour support plan for reducing soft-drink consumption. Another application for behaviour analysis; used as a model for understanding why people do what they do and to suggest ways to change behaviour.
References:
French, S.A. (2003). Pricing effects on food choices. The Journal of Nutrition, 133(3), 8415-8435.
Related Posts:
Why bans and restrictions only affect one layer of a problem behaviour
When Diet Coke became regular coke by mistake
Another antecedent cue added to my environment. While packing my gear for a camping trip, I remembered that my hiking shoes were in my car. Because the target behaviour of clipping my shoes to my backpack needed to be performed in another location, I wanted to ensure that this note would cue me at the relevant time. Taking this sticky note with me as I walk out the door would increase the likelihood of me clipping my shoes to the backpack, which would then be available to me during my trip (as opposed to being left in the car).
The shoes were clipped, then later worn for the portage, thunder box trail and shot-putting shenanigans. The summer camping season has come to an end and of course, behaviour analysis was there as well!
Are you familiar with the Social Thinking program? Do you know if it is evidence-based?
behavioralintervention
Thanks for the questions @behavioralintervention.
I am very familiar with the Social Thinking program by Michelle Garcia Winner and her colleagues. I use her materials in a lot of my direct instruction teaching of youth with various social-communication difficulties. I think of it more as a curriculum versus a treatment package. While the Social Thinking package in isolation is not considered an evidence-based practice, it is based on evidence and research in the area of social cognition. It would be hard to tease out the curriculum effects from the teaching effects as many instructional methods and resources are used (e.g., cartooning, role play and rehearsal, social scripting and narratives, priming, practice and feedback, etc.) - some of which are behaviour analytic in nature.
Overall, I think it is a good curriculum that can be applied as part of the social skills teachings provided to our learners. What I find missing in a lot of social skills programming/teaching is the emphasis on the contextual cues. The subtle differences in the environment result in a different set of behaviours that are expected and acceptable given the context. The Social Thinking materials (and others e.g., Social Stories) hit on these aspects. It gets away from the rule-based learning of social skills (“I have to share with my friends”) and attempts to present the why of social skills - related to the context (which is antecedent in nature) and the perspectives of others (which is consequential in nature). However, a social behaviour still has to “work” or be reinforced in order to be learned. I try to bring attention to the naturally occurring sources of reinforcement (if they are indeed reinforcing to our learner) through feedback; however, additional reinforcers and self-monitoring might be necessary in the beginning stages of teaching. These would eventually be faded in favour of the reinforcement which can be delivered by peers in the natural environment.
