The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 61–79 | Cite as

An Implementation of Protocol Analysis and the Silent Dog Method in the Area of Behavioral Safety

  • Alicia M. Alvero
  • John Austin


Recent research has demonstrated that conducting safety observations increases the safety performance of the observer. The purpose of this study was to help determine whether observers make self-verbalizations regarding their own safety performance and whether these reports are functionally related to safety performance. In order to answer these questions two experiments were conducted using both protocol analysis and the silent dog method. The objective of Experiment 1 was (a) to determine whether safety performance with continuous, concurrent talk-aloud procedures is functionally equivalent to safety performance without talk-aloud reports, and (b) to determine whether that safety performance is altered when participants are presented with a distracter task. The goal of Experiment 2 was to determine whether the safety-related verbalizations made by Experiment 1 participants were task-relevant and functionally related to safety performance. The results from both Experiments 1 and 2 provide support for the existence of a functional relationship between safety-related verbalizations and increases in safety performance.

Key words

behavioral safety silent dog method protocol analysis behavioral observations self-generated rules 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The role of “rules” in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvero, A. M. & Austin, J. (2003). The observer effect. In T. McSween (Ed.), The values-based safety process (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Alvero, A. M., & Austin, J. (2004). The observer effect: The effects of conducting behavioral observations on the behavior of the observer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 457–468.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, J., & Delaney, P. F. (1998). Protocol analysis as a tool for behavior analysis. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15, 41–56.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, D. M. (1977). Perhaps it would be better not to know everything. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 167–172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, C. T., Langholtz, H. J., Auble, J., & Sopchak, B. (1998). Resource-allocation strategies: A verbal protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 70–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). Problem solving in semantically rich domains: An example from engineering thermodynamics. Cognitive Science, 1, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 183–187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Doyle, A. C. (1892). The memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. Reprinted in Sherlock Holmes: Complete novels and stories (Vol. 1, pp. 455–477). New York: Bantam Books, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1983). Similar reactivity produced by external cues and self-monitoring. Behavior Modification, 7, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes, S. C., White, D., & Bissett, R. T. (1998). Protocol analysis and the “silent dog” method of analyzing the impact of self-generated rules. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15, 57–63.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Huitema, B. E. (1985). Autocorrelation in applied behavior analysis: A myth. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 107–118.Google Scholar
  14. Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick-Buys, L. (1991). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change (4th ed.) (pp. 305–360). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  15. Komaki, J. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Komaki, J., Barwick, K. K., & Scott, L. R. (1978). A behavioral approach to occupational safety: Pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 434–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Komaki, J., Heinzmann, A. T., & Lawson, L. (1980). Effect of training and feedback: Component analysis of a behavioral safety program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 261–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Krause, T. R. (1997). The behavior-based safety process. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  19. Malott, R. W. (1992). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mawhinney, T. C., & Austin, J. (1999). Using concurrent verbal reports to examine data analyst verbal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18(4), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McSween, T. E. (2003). The values-based safety process (2nd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1998). OSHA Ergonomics Report DT931018 [Data file]. Available from: Scholar
  23. Office of Health and Safety Information System. (1998). Safety manuals [Data file]. Available from: Scholar
  24. Parsonson, B. S. (1999). Evaluating experimental and quasi-experimental field data. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18(4), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parsonson, B. S., & Baer, D. M. (1992). The visual analysis of data, and current research into the stimuli controlling it. In T. R. Kratochwill, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 15–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Perone, M. (1988). Laboratory lore and research practices in the experimental analysis of human behavior: Use and abuse of subjects’ verbal reports. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 71–75.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Rachlin, H. (1974). Self-control. Behaviorism, 2, 94–107.Google Scholar
  28. Sasson, J. (2002). Examining the effects of conducting behavior-based safety observations. Unpublished master’s thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.Google Scholar
  29. Schlinger, H. D. (1993). Separating discriminative and function-altering effects of verbal stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 9–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Fellner, D. (1984). Searching for performance targets in the behavioral analysis of occupational health and safety: An assessment strategy. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 6(2), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wulfert, E., Dougher, M. J., & Greenway, D. E. (1991). Protocol analysis of the correspondence of verbal behavior and equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 489–504.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueens College at the City University of New YorkFlushingUSA
  2. 2.Western Michigan UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations