I Shouldn’t Have Opened my Big Mouth: Skinner’s Analysis of Self-Editing Mark L. Sundberg B.F. Skinner Memorial Address 18th Annual Conference of the International Society for Behaviorology March 18-20, 2006

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 intraverbal behavior Manding for irrelevant or odd information Just useless tacts of commonplace stimuli Dominating a conversation Endlessly digressing Excessively manding on the listener

Do you know speakers who... “Put their foot in their mouths” “Can’t get their words out” Can’t tie their thoughts together “Don’t listen to others” “Spoil the point of a joke” “Have an opinion on everything” “Lose their train of thought” “Forget what they are talking about” “Never get to the point” “Can’t explain what they mean” “Never shut up”

Skinner’s (1957) Analysis of Self-Editing Skinner devoted three chapters in Verbal Behavior to 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 speaker with appropriate autoclitics which augment and sharpen the effect upon the listener. They are also often examined for their effect upon the speaker or prospective listener, and then either rejected or released. This process of “editing” is an additional activity of the speaker” (Skinner, 1957, p. 369).

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).

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 of the covert forms” (p. 371). “The subject is a difficult one because it has all the disadvantages of private stimulation” (p. 371).

Why Behavior is Rejected? “A speaker usually rejects a response because it has been punished” (p. 371).

Why Verbal Behavior is Punished? “Verbal behavior may be objectionable to the listener simply as noise” (p. 373). “Verbal behavior is frequently punished because of deficient stimulus control” (p. 373). “Verbal behavior is usually punished--if only by its ineffectiveness--when it is under poor audience control” (p. 374). “Verbal behavior may be automatically self- punishing” (p. 375).

The Effects of Punishment “Concealing the identity of the speaker” (p. 377). “Recession to the covert level” (p. 377). “Talking to one’s self” (p. 377). “Disguised speech” (pp ).

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 autoclitic which reduces the threat of punishment” (p. 377).

The Autoclitics of Editing “If all one’s 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).

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).

Skinner’s Summary of Self-Editing “ The production of raw verbal behavior following the principles outlined in Parts II and III comes first. Autoclitic responses or activities (Part IV) then occur. The resulting behavior may not immediately reach the ultimate listener. Because of punishment of other behavior it may be held up for review by the speaker or writer. Changes occur in the act of review which lead to rejection, to emission in a qualified form, or full-fledged emission. Often the process is not complete until the speaker has resorted to other activities to produce alternative forms of responses (Chapter 17)” (p. 382).

Special Conditions of Self-Editing “Verbal behavior is not always subject to the review discussed in the last chapter. Some variables are too powerful to wait for editing” (p. 384). “Defective feedback” (p. 384). “Defective self-observation” (pp ). “Defective responses to controlling variables” (pp ). “Automatic verbal behavior” (pp ).

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 some strength in his repertoire” (p. 403).

Techniques “Manipulating stimuli” (p ). –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 ). “Building new verbal responses” ( ).

An Application of Skinner’s 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

“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.

“Caring” “Caring” can be defined as: –Behavior evoked, in part, by an EO involving a high 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 his listeners react to his verbal behavior because he has a strong EO for producing certain positive effects on the listener due to his conditioning history.

“Not caring” Some speakers emit socially inappropriate or ineffective verbal behavior as a result of their particular conditioning history and their current EOs. These speakers may be classified as “not caring” about their verbal behavior producing positive effects on a specific listener.

“Not caring” “Not caring” can be defined as: –Behavior evoked by an EO related to a high value of negative listener reaction due to a specific conditioning history, or verbal behavior evoked by a discriminative stimulus, without an EO variable related to positive listener reaction, also due to a particular conditioning history.

“Not caring” For example, a speaker who emits racial slurs doesn’t 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.

“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.

“Aware” A speaker who can and does tact his own verbal behaviors, the sources of control for his verbal behavior, and a listener’s response to his behavior, may be classified as being “aware” of the effects of his verbal behavior on listeners.

“Aware” defined by Skinner: “We are aware of what we are doing when we can describe the topography of our behavior. We are aware of why we are doing it when we describe the relevant variables, such as the important aspects of the 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 attending to other stimuli, he may then engage in certain types of self-editing that may alter the listener behavior.

“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.

“Unaware” can be defined as: The failure to tact one’s own behavior and the variables of which it is a function. For example, a person who has consumed large amounts 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 the probability of such behavior under other circumstances (e.g., when sober) are ineffective.

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”

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

Analysis of Aware and Caring Weak public speaking repertoire Weak intraverbals Weak mands for information Weak autoclitics Excessive punishment history Insufficient reinforcement history Deficient stimulus control

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 “I’m not making myself clear” or “I know I’m not saying this well.”

Analysis of Aware and Caring These speakers may avoid verbal contact altogether or over-edit their verbal behavior to the point where the rate of verbal behavior is extremely 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 “I’m not making sense.” They may engage in too much editing.

Analysis of Aware and Caring 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.

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 ) describes several techniques for teaching 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.

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).

Unaware and Caring: “High Rate of Trivial Verbal Behavior” Uncontrolled intraverbal behavior in the form of idle chatter Useless tacting of commonplace 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 clichés Singsong Too obvious Too commonplace Shopworn Lots of bad jokes

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 Weak listener repertoires Strong intraverbal and mand repertoires Failure to emit appropriate autoclitics

An Analysis of the Causes of Unaware but Caring Typically, punishment reduces this behavior (Skinner, 1957), but there may not be enough punishment along with too much differential 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 person’s 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 excessive amount of verbal behavior (the person just won’t shut up).

Intervention This population may not seek treatment because they are “unaware” that there is a problem, but intervention could be quite successful. Skinner suggests a potential intervention strategy for this group. “A mere reduction of the relative frequency of reinforcement would reduce this activity, but probably not to a reasonable level. The process of extinction as employed in discrimination, brings verbal behavior under appropriate stimulus control, but the conditions under which verbal behavior is reinforced are so extensive and so confusing that something more is probably needed. The process of editing generated by punishment greatly increase the appropriateness of verbal behavior to all features of an occasion, including the audience” (p. 380).

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 a joke

An Analysis of the Causes of 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

An Analysis of the Causes of Aware but Not Caring Speakers who fall in this category have a unique reinforcement and punishment history. The typical social punishers used by the verbal community have been ineffective and often a select verbal community has provided differential reinforcement for the offending verbal behavior, especially when directed towards others. These individuals may be able to tact the effects of their behaviors on listeners, but they are reinforced by the negative reactions. Many children with developmental disabilities are reinforced by reprimands and negative reactions of listeners. Some people just like to piss other people off!

Intervention Speakers who emit this type of verbal behavior probably do not seek treatment because they do not feel as if anything is wrong. They see the problem as being in the listener who “can’t take a joke” or is a wimp. Therefore, it may be quite difficult to change this behavior because of the difficulty to control the relevant contingencies.

Unaware and Uncaring DD, MI, Drugs and Alcohol Illogical rambling Incoherent, mumbling Delusional Self-talk Far-fetched intraverbal sequences... “flight of ideas” Odd mands

An Analysis of the Causes of Unaware and Uncaring Biological, medical, physiological MR/MI/DD diagnosis Drugs/alcohol Sleep deprivation Basic verbal and social skills deficits All the above environmental variables

An Analysis of the Causes of Unaware and Not Caring Speakers who emit this type of unedited verbal behavior don’t care if they offend their listeners. They don’t care about the effects of their verbal behavior on others. The don’t tact their own verbal behavior or the controlling variables. They may largely be their own listeners in that they are automatically reinforced by their own verbal behavior.

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.

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 and intermittent reinforcement, and the other behavioral principles.

Conclusions Self-editing involves not only the concepts of the basic elementary operants, but multiple control, autoclitics, automatic reinforcement, private events, and thinking. This seems to reflect the heart of radical behaviorism. Skinner provides several self-editing techniques that should be developed into an intervention package.

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 and intermittent reinforcement, and the other behavioral principles.