|
| Conceptual, Applied, and Investigative Considerations in Verbal Behavior |
| Sunday, May 24, 2015 |
| 9:00 AM–9:50 AM |
| 217A (CC) |
| Area: VBC/TPC; Domain: Theory |
| Chair: Mitch Fryling (California State University, Los Angeles) |
| CE Instructor: Genevieve M. DeBernardis, M.A. |
| Abstract: Verbal behavior continues to be an important topic within behavior analysis. Indeed, to the extent that language seems to be the sources of much conceptual debate, both historically and more recently, it is not surprising that the topic remains central to current theory, research, and practice issues. In this symposium we address several independent, though thematically related issues in verbal behavior. The first paper, by Meindl, Miller, and Ivy, considers the extent to which Skinner’s (1957) analysis of verbal behavior was formal, as contrasted with functional, in nature. In particular, the definitions of Skinner’s verbal operants are considered, and their completeness is evaluated. The second paper, by Fryling, elaborates on a distinction central to interbehaviorism, the distinction between constructs and events. Skinner’s verbal operants are considered from this perspective, and research on the functional independence of Skinner’s verbal operants is considered. Finally, a number of implications for further research and practice are provided, especially considering the long-term goal of language intervention for individuals with deficient language repertoires. The last paper, written by DeBernardis and Hayes, addresses a line of research on derived relational responding, specifically that which employs a tool called the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). The origins of this tool are considered, as are recent variations of this research instrument. Recent research on this topic is considered, and, the extent to which the IRAP, including its more recent reiterations, measures what it purports to measure are considered. Recommendations for further research and practice are suggested. |
| Keyword(s): Interbehaviorism, Relational Responding, Verbal Behavior, Verbal Operants |
| |
| On the formal versus functional categorization of verbal operants: Examining Skinner’s conceptualization of verbal behavior |
| JAMES NICHOLSON MEINDL (The University of Memphis), Neal Miller (University of Memphis), Jonathan W. Ivy (Mercyhurst University) |
| Abstract: In Verbal Behavior (1957), Skinner attempted to offer a functional account of human language and made a point of contrasting his approach with the more traditional formal accounts available at the time. Rather than focus on the structure or mechanics of language (formal aspects of language), Skinner attempted to identify the conditions that gave rise to those behaviors. Although Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior has been influential, some aspects of his analysis continue to be debated and interpreted in various ways due to perceived ambiguities in his account. In this paper we argue that with regards to verbal behavior in general, and the specific verbal operants, Skinner took a largely formal approach which has led to some confusion. We contend that his definitions may be incomplete, and we critically examine the way Skinner distinguished between verbal from nonverbal behavior and his definitions of the various verbal operants (e.g., tacts, intraverbals, textual behavior). Finally, we suggest possible future directions in response to the issues raised. |
| |
| Constructs, Events and Skinner’s Verbal Operants |
| MITCH FRYLING (California State University, Los Angeles) |
| Abstract: There has been much discussion over Skinner’s 1957 analysis of verbal behavior within the behavior analytic community. While Skinner’s analysis has led to a good amount of research, for some, Skinner’s analysis has been considered insufficient because it has not led to an analysis of language that applies to the full range of human language situations. To the extent that Skinner’s analysis is uniquely characterized as a functional analysis, some have suggested that his analysis is upheld or supported when verbal operants are found to be functionally independent. This paper describes and elaborates upon a distinction embraced by interbehaviorists, the distinction between constructs and events. Skinner’s verbal operants are considered from this perspective, and the extent to which what we know about the verbal operants supports Skinner’s analysis as a comprehensive analysis of verbal behavior is considered. Conceptual implications are highlighted, as are implications for further applied research and practice, even in areas where Skinner’s analysis has been assumed to be especially useful. In particular, the long-term goal of language intervention is emphasized and the strengths and limitations of Skinner’s approach are highlighted. |
| |
| Investigative Considerations in Verbal Behavior |
| GENEVIEVE M. DEBERNARDIS (University of Nevada, Reno), Linda J. Parrott Hayes (University of Nevada, Reno) |
| Abstract: One approach to the investigation of verbal relations has been through derived relational responding. Various iterations of investigative approaches have led to the use of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) which is thought to reveal the strength of verbal relations. Through assessing consistent and inconsistent blocks of word relation responses, it is believed that this procedure can be used to measure an individual’s implicit attitude and beliefs on a variety of topics. In addition to this, the IRAP applies levels of complexity to this assessment, which requires quick and accurate responses to consistent and inconsistent relations between the target stimulus relations of interest. The origins of this tool are considered, as are recent variations of this research instrument. Recent research on this topic is considered, and, the extent to which the IRAP, including its more recent reiterations, measures what it purports to measure are considered. Recommendations for further research and practice are suggested, as well as conceptual considerations for what constitutes verbal behavior. |
|
| |