[From Dick Robertson] (950927.2256CDT)
WPCB
[FROM: Dennis Delprato (950824)]
Dennis Delprato 950823
Rick Marken 950823.2230
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.
This sounds interesting, Dennis. Could you describe the "constructional
approach" to behavior modification and explain how it is close to what
one might do based on PCT?
AVOID aversive and coercive practices and procedures.
AVOID contrived rewards such as tokens, points, praise, and so on.
DO NOT USE eliminative procedures that focus on _eliminating_
problem behaviors. These include reinforcing non-occurrences
of behaviors, extinction, punishment, response cost, aversive
conditioning.
Work collaboratively with identified clients.
Negotiate.
FIND OUT WHAT THE CLIENT WANTS AND HELP THEM GET IT IN
WAYS THAT ARE ETHICAL AND LEGAL.
ยทยทยท
Subject: PCT Application
____________________________
Perhaps you can now understand why, despite being around for
20 years in the behavioral literature, the constructional
approach is not taken as "state of the art."
I. Goldiamond, who introduced the constructional approach, has
been one of a less-than-handful of people in behavior therapy who
have forthrightly addressed the coercion problem. Another is Murray
Sidman, who published "Coercion and Its Fallout" a few years ago.
Sidman spent virtually all of his book detailing the fallout of
coercive social and interpersonal practices. Not having studied
PCT, Sidman is unable to (a) offer a sound principle for the basis
of fallout from coercion and (b) propose principles for practice
that would minimize coercion and its fallout. I tried to address
a & b in a little paper entitled "Beyond Murray Sidman's _Coercion
and Its Fallout_" that recently appeared in the _Psychological
Record_ (Summer, 1995 issue, I believe). The idea was to offerT
much of what I said in attempting to clarify how PCT deals with
coercion was cut, I doubt if many readers not familiar with PCT
will follow the argument.
Dennis Delprato
psy_delprato@emuvax.emich.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Rick Marken (950823.2230) --
Rick Marken (950824.1000) --
I don't want to try to control you with praise, but your expositions on
contingencies and rules are the clearest and most direct that have yet
appeared on the net. Also, Joel Judd's (950824.0215 CST) explanation of
the difference between natural and man-made contingencies fits right in.
Especially important are Joel's comments:
There is at least one gross distinction to be made among students
according to maturity--when to insist on following rules "no matter
what," and when to help students understand and (theoretically)
accept rules because doing so can reduce conflict and error.
and yours:
You can probably get away with teaching "the rules that must be
followed" to young kids; tell a kid that the rule is "blacks use
this bathroom, whites use that one" and the kid will have fun
trying to follow it (control for the perception of the rule). But
at a certain point, most people are capable of perceiving aspects
of the world that transcend rules -- principles and system
concepts, for example.
This is the point I have been trying to express: that simply teaching
rules does not address the quality of the rules, or higher-level
concepts in terms of which we evaluate rules for ourselves. At the same
time children are learning the adult-defined rules of their social
environments, they are laying the groundwork for developing a sense of
principles and ultimately system concepts. You can either lead themT
specific pre-selected set of principles and system concepts, or you can
show them how these things relate to each other and give each child a
new chance to work out a better structure.
The basic problem, and the basic controversy in education, stems from a
conflict. If we just leave children to develop their own rules and
principles, they will come up with random or bizarre solutions or
solutions which have been tried over and over and have failed over and
over (which we can see all around us in people who came from highly
permissive or neglectful backgrounds). But if we apply all our adult
wisdom to make sure they are raised with the same rules, standards and
values that we were raised with, we will be raising them simply to
preserve all the flaws that exist in our present world (as we can see in
people who simply want us all to go back to the old traditional values
-- _their_ ancestors' old traditional values, of course).
The way out of this conflict, it seems to me, is a lot like what Ed Ford
has been doing (as opposed to saying). You go over the rules and try to
pare them down to the absolute minimum that is really needed to make the
social system work, and you try to teach the children and teachers how
to confront conflicts and try to resolve them. The resolution you teach,
to the extent you can, is negotiation, not force; you leave the result
of the negotiation open for the individuals involved to find. You teach
respect for the will of others by trying to _have_ respect for the will
of others. "I detest what you're saying, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it."
----------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Best,
Bill P.
5712 S Harper Ave. Chicago, Il 60637