Advertisement

Behavior and Social Issues

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 95–100 | Cite as

Macrocontingencies and Institutions: A Behaviorological Analysis

  • Jerome D. UlmanEmail author
Article

Abstract

Macrocontingency is defined as the conjoint actions of two or more individuals under common contingency control. This unit of analysis addresses the effects of contingency relations controlling the actions of any number of individuals, concurrently or sequentially. A macrocontingency analysis at the institutional level begins by identifying the motivating condition and functional components of an institution. The components are occasional but interrelated behavioral situations (e.g., meetings) incorporating the physical settings, conjoint actions of the participants, and macrocontingencies controlling those actions. What is denoted or inferred in a macrocontingency analysis must be capable of being directly observable. An institutional macrocontingency analysis is illustrated with a report of a protest march issuing from the struggle in Brazil to reverse an unequal distribution of land.

Keywords

macrocontingency institutional analysis language interlocking behavioral contingencies verbal behavior 

References

  1. Dugger, W. M., & Sherman, H. J. (2000). Reclaiming evolution: A dialogue between Marxism and institutionalism on social change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Glenn, S. S. (2003). Operant contingencies and the origin of cultures. In K. A. Lattal & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Behavior theory and philosophy (pp. 223–242). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Glenn, S. S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The Behavior Analyst, 27, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ingham, G. (1999). Money is a social relation. In S. Fleetwood (Ed.), Critical realism in economics: Development and debate. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Italie, M. (2005, June). Brazil: 12,000 march demanding land. The Militant, 69(23). Retrieved July 2, 2005, from https://doi.org/www.themilitant.com/2005/6923/692351.html
  6. Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 407–414.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  8. Skinner, B. F. (1992). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: B. F. Skinner Foundation. (Original work published 1957)Google Scholar
  9. Ulman, J. D. (1978). A radical behavioral view of school violence. In R. A. Brosio & L. F. Birkel (Eds.), Conference on school violence: Proceedings 1978 (pp. 59–73). Muncie, IN: Teachers College Publications, Ball State University.Google Scholar
  10. Ulman, J. D. (1998). Toward a more complete science of human behavior: Behaviorology plus institutional economics. Behavior and Social Issues, 8, 195–217.  https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v8i2.329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vargas, E. A. (1975). Rights: A behavioristic analysis. Behaviorism, 3, 178–190.Google Scholar
  12. Vargas, E. A. (2005, March). The mediational function in the verbal episode. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for Behaviorology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jerome D. Ulman 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Special EducationBall State UniversityMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations