Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 19–22 | Cite as

Post-session verbal reports and the experimental analysis of behavior

  • Eliot Shimoff
Article

Abstract

Experimental analyses of the performance of verbal subjects often include verbal reports, obtained during post-session interviews, about within-session covert verbal behavior (e.g., hypotheses about the contingencies). But such post-session reports are not necessarily accurate, and procedural details of how the samples were obtained are typically inadequate. Even when the post-session reports are accurate, the within-session hypotheses do not have the status of causes of within-session nonverbal performance. In an experimental analysis, it is important to treat such reports as instances, not causes, of behavior.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Catania, A.C., Matthews, B.A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed verses shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38, 233–248.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (in press). Stimulus equivalence in language able and language disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.Google Scholar
  3. Hayes. S. C. (in press). Cognitive psychology and the analysis of self rules: A review of Ericsson and Simon’s Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.Google Scholar
  4. Hefferline, R. F., Keenan, B., & Harford, R. A. (1959). Escape and avoidance conditioning in human subjects without their observation of the response. Science, 130, 1338–1339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Laurenti-Lyons, L., Gallego, J., Chambille, B., Vardon, G., & Jacquemin, C. (1985). Control of myoelectrical responses through reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lowe, C. F. (1979). Determinants of human operant behavior. In M. D. Zeiler & P. Harzem (Eds.), Advances in the analysis of behavior, volume 1: Reinforcement and the organization of behavior (pp. 159–192). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1977). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Shimoff, E., Matthews, B.A., & Catania, A.C. (in press). Human operant performance: Sensitivity and pseudosensitivity to contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.Google Scholar
  10. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smith, E. R., & Miller, F. D. (1978). Limits on perception of cognitive processes: A reply to Nisbett and Wilson. Psychological Review, 85, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eliot Shimoff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Maryland Baltimore CountyUSA

Personalised recommendations