[FROM: Dennis Delprato (950823)]
Rick Marken (950823.0930)
Joe Sierzenga via Ed Ford (950822) --
Students choose to go to the social skills room because it is a place that
is safe and secure.
A student may be sent home if he or she disrupts the social skills room or
refuses to go there.
I'm not sure I see how this approach to dealing with students is based on
an understanding of people as perceptual control systems.
What I'm having trouble with is the way your program is DESCRIBED. What you
(and Joe) SAY you are doing doesn't sound an awful lot different than what a
behavior modifier would say he or she is doing. I just don't see how your
DESCRIPTION of what you do relates to my understanding of people as
perceptual control systems. I think Bill Powers is having the same problem so
it's not just me: it SOUNDS like you are describing a behavior modifiaction
program using some of the language of PCT.
I think that IN PRACTICE your program is consistent with a PCT understanding
of the the nature of people and that it works because, by and large, you
allow the students to control in a way that respects the autonomy of the
teacher and of other students, too. I just don't see a lot of PCT in the
DESCRIPTION of the program; I don't see, for example, how an understanding
of PCT would lead to a DESCRIPTION of a program that includes, as important
components, 1) teaching students the rules 2) sending students to a
social skills rooms if they don't follow the rules and 3) allowing students
to return to class only after they have produced a plan for behaving
properly.
These elements of the program SOUND LIKE operant conditioning (control by
contingency).
There are three questions concerning what Ed is doing:
1. What are the procedures or operations? In other words, what
are the details of the program that contacts the lives of participants
(identified clients and all others who are involved such as parents,
teachers, administrators,...).
2. What is the justification for the procedures? How do they follow
from PCT?
3. Rick's emphasis of DESCRIPTION above brings up a third question
which is, "Are we getting an accurate description of the procedures?"
I am not surprised that there would be uncertainty regarding the degree
to which Ed's program is based on PCT. This is all still quite new
and in a developmental stage. Perhaps it would help to address the
above three questions.
Secondly, Rick detects BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION is certain aspects of
Ed's description. There are many varieties of what passes for
behavior modification or behavior therapy theory and procedures.
For example, the little appreciated (anywhere) "constructional
approach," first offered by Goldiamond is quite close to much of what
one might suggest procedurally from a PCT viewpoint. Furthermore,
how does one eliminate contingencies? A student bops another student
on the head--there will be a contingency no matter what, i.e.,
something will happen following the bop. I imagine that Ed's
problem is make the contingencies as noncoercive as possible.
I doubt that Ed would recommend that bopping be followed by
contingent electrodermal stimulation or even that nonbopping
for 15 min. be consequated by an M & M. Needed are guidelines
for PCT-based ways of procedurally handling specific instances
of overt behavior.
I find that a major difficulty of getting PCT on line in terms
of clinical procedures is the assumption that we need to teach
people how to control perceptions but that we should not focus on
overt behavior because overt behavior is a byproduct of control of
perception. (Crude behavior modification remains attractive to
many because it appears to confront directly that which is most
obvious, troublesome, and worthwhile--depending on the circumstances:
observable behavior.) Is they any chance that the assumption I have
just stated is mistaken? Perhaps -- as it stands, it seems to pose
something of a conundrum.
Dennis Delprato
Department of Psychology
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
psy_delprato@emuvax.emich.edu