Behaviour Analysis is grounded in the philosophy of radical
behaviourism. Although a knowledge of radical behaviourism is unnecessary for
practicing behaviour analysts it can help when trying to understand the “big
picture” to have a basic grounding in some of the assumptions that underlay the
science.
In this blog I’d like to discuss one of the most controversial
aspects of radical behaviourism – determinism. The chances are that you’ve
heard of determinism and know something about it but I’d like to proffer a
definition anyway for our purposes here;
Determinism (in science) is the belief that any effect must invariably
have a cause. Nothing happens through some conspicuous free-agent but is
instead a product of the natural environment. - Me.
Delprato and Midgely1 describe the role of
determinism in radical behaviourism as:
In Skinner's approach, this determinism assumption is fundamental for (a)
making human behavior amenable to scientific understanding and (b) what Skinner
viewed as the primary goals of science: prediction and control. This
assumption, however, does not imply any sort of mechanistic determinism in
which stimuli and responses are contiguous and the former impel the latter.
Note that important qualifier at the end. Determinism does
not necessarily imply mechanistic stimulus-response relationships.
Indeed Determinism is the belief that for every effect there
must be a cause, but a causal event does not lead irrevocably to a set
response.
Why is this
idea controversial?
Within the natural sciences this position is not hotly
contested. Long gone are the days of Aristotelian “jubilant motion” or the
theocratic notion of “godly will”. We understand know that rock falls to earth
because of the force of gravity, and that a tree grows in reaction to
photosynthesis, nutrient absorption and so on. There is nothing mystical about
it, there is no “will to fall” or “will to grow” that causes these events.
The controversy comes when we try and apply this idea to
human psychology. Here’s the deal; we in the west have a strong tradition of
believing in free will. We believe we
have complete control over our actions. We believe in every situation we have a
choice – a free choice, nonetheless, and that in the end our behaviour is a
product of…well consciousness. Of course this is slightly circular, observe; I
ask you; “Why do you behave?” you say “because I will it”, I retort “How do you
know you willed it?” and you answer… “Because I behaved”. It’s a somewhat
useless argument that fails to offer anything valid to the debate.
The controversy is borne out of behaviour analysts insisting
that human behaviour is actually a product of our environment – it is determined – and is ultimately lawful
(and thus predictable).
Alas, I may have given you the wrong impression. I’ve implied
in the preceding paragraphs that behaviour analysts don’t believe we have choice,
or control, or anything; that we are literally puppets on a metaphysical
string. Yet everyone knows that, when faced with the agonising decision of
Chinese or Indian for tea… we definitely do make our own choices, but do we?
There is nothing controversial in suggesting that we make
choices like what to have to eat. So let’s analyse the decision of what to eat
and see if we can show how a seemingly “free” choice is actually entirely
determined by past events and environmental contingencies.
Let’s say I ask you what you’d like to eat. You reply that
you aren’t sure, either Indian or Chinese will do. What is the process you go
through when making this decision?
There are obviously a number of factors and this is a very simplified version of the decision making process, but what is really going on? Well first which do you prefer? Have you had a bad experience with one type of food? Did you have a dodgy curry one fateful evening? Or did you have a sweet and sour pork with suspiciously un-pork-like meat populating it? In the behaviour analytic world we call this your reinforcement (or learning) history.
-
- Which do you prefer? Do you like curry more than chow mein?
- Which is closer? And is time until you eat important?
- Have you heard any particularly good or bad reviews about either place?
Second, how hungry are you? If you are starving does a 45
minute drive to the nearest curry house strike fear and depression into your
heart? Does the quick and convenient walk to the Chinese inspire you with
thoughts of tucking into a crispy duck starter in 20 minutes flat? We call your
level of hunger a Motivating Operation (MO), and the relative availability of
the food a stimulus discriminant (Sd).
Finally have you heard anything about either place? Did a
friend tell you (in too much detail) about their fateful morning-after
digestive problems after a House Special? Did you hear about the particularly
excellent Kheema Naan? Depending on how you look at it we could call this
rule-governed behaviour (although I am sure that is up for debate!).
So we see that a supposedly innocuous exercise of “free will”
is actually a meticulously controlled and determined choice that can be
predicted (and with some accuracy) once you know the relevant factors. The
interesting thing, however, is that you never feel controlled.
Determinism then is not the scary concept it is so often
portrayed as. It merely recognises that behaviour does not occur in a vacuum. Now that is an incredibly important
point so let me reiterate it; behaviour
does not occur in a vacuum, it is always contextual.
This is a very important aspect of behaviourism and something
often overlooked when trying to understand behaviour. Context is the sum total
of the relevant environmental factors (including learning history) that affect
behaviour. For example the ringing of a bell means many different things to
different people and will elicit a number of different responses; but it doesn’t
change the fact that the behaviour that occurs is still determined by the
ringing of the bell.
So let’s wrap this up;
-
- Determinism is a key foundation of radical behaviourism
- It delineates how human behaviour is actually a product of environmental contingencies and not some hypothetical inner cause
- It is a controversial principle to apply to human behaviour
- It provides the foundation on which human behaviour can be predicted and controlled
1Delprato, D. J., & Midgley,
B. D. (1984). Some Fundamentals of B F
Skinner’s Behaviorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment