Abstract
The structure, function, and processes of a system modulate human behavior on at least 3 levels of selection: biological, behavioral, and cultural. During phylogenesis, an acquired biological structure will enable the organism to discriminate antecedent and consequent stimuli that are functionally related to response classes. Although the reinforcing value of most stimuli is based on natural selection, the stimuli’s control over behavior is mediated by a verbal community. Thus, the reinforcing value of a stimulus is established (a) during phylogenesis when it has adaptive value for that species, (b) during ontogenesis when it has adaptive value for the organism, and (c) culturally when it has adaptive value for a group. If a gene sequence/phenotype, response class, or set of contingencies matches the environment over time (i.e., function), then a structure will become recurrent. Structures are networks of relations that carry information about the adaptive history of a certain system. This paper discusses the ways in which a selectionist explanation of human behavior may incorporate the interdependence of processes, function, and structure at 3 levels of complexity. The cultural behavioral perspective represented by the concept of metacontingency will have its parallel to processes (interlocking behavioral contingencies IBC), function (aggregated product AP), context (receiving system RS), and a recurrent structure (nested interlocking behavioral contingencies n-IBC).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aló, R. M., Abreu-Rodrigues, J., Souza, A. S., & Cançado, C. R. X. (2015). The persistence of fixed-ratio and differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate schedule performance. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 41(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.5514/rmac.v41.i1.63685.
Arntzen, E. (2012). Training and testing parameters in formation of stimulus equivalence: Methodological issues. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2012.11434412.
Arntzen, E., & Hansen, S. (2011). Training structures and the formation of equivalence classes. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12, 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434397.
Catania, A. C. (1973). The psychologies of structure, function, and development. American Psychologist, 28(5), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034619.
Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5th ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan Publishing.
Catania, A. C., & Harnad, S. (Eds.). (1988). The selection of behavior: The operant behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Monton.
Couto, K. C. (2019). Selection of cultures and the role of recurrent contingencies and interlocking behavioral contingencies. Behavior and Social Issues. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-0001-y.
Couto, K. C., & Sandaker, I. (2016). Natural, behavioral and cultural selection-analysis: An integrative approach. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 54–60. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v.25i0.6891.
Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The gene as the unit of selection. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2012). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Glenn, S. S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The Behavior Analyst, 27(2), 133–151 Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755396/.
Glenn, S. S., Mallot, M. E., Andery, M. A., Benvenuti, M. F., Houmanfar, R. A., Sandaker, et al. (2016). Toward consistent terminology in a behavioristic approach to cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 11–27. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v.25i0.6634.
Hallpike, C. R. (1984). Fitting culture into a Skinner box. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(4), 489–490.
Holth, P. (2013). Different sciences as answers to different why questions. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 14(1), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2013.11434454.
Houmanfar, R., & Rodrigues, N. J. (2006). The metacontingency and the behavioral contingency: Points of contact and departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 15(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v15i1.342.
Iversen, I. H. (2002). Response-initiated imaging of operant behavior using a digital camera. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 77(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.77-283.
Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-79.
Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of psychology: A systematic text in the science of behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Killeen, P. (1994). The mathematical principles of reinforcement. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 105–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00033628.
McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Gerard, C. J., Wilde, L., & Smelson, D. (2018). Algorithmic analysis of relational learning processes in instructional technology: Some implications for basic, translational, and applied research. Behavioural Processes, 152, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2018.03.001.
Sandaker, I. (2009). A selectionist perspective on systemic and behavioral change in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29(3–4), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060903092128.
Saunders, R. R., & Green, G. (1999). A discrimination analysis of training structure effects on stimulus equivalence outcomes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-117.
Skinner, B. F. (1934). The extinction of chained reflex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 20, 234–237.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213(4507), 501–504. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7244649.
Vasconcelos, I. G., & Todorov, J. C. (2015). Experimental analysis of the behavior of persons in groups: Selection of an aggregate product in a metacontingency. Behavior and Social Issues, 24, 111–125. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v24i0.5424.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Gunnar Ree, Josele Abreu-Rodrigues, Traci Cihon, and the reviewers for their valuable comments on previous versions of this manuscript. L. C. de Carvalho is member of the National Institute of Science and Technology on Behavior, Cognition, and Teaching (INCT - ECCE), supported by FAPESP (Grant No. 2014/50909-8), CAPES (Grant No. 88887.136407/2017-00), and CNPq (Grant No. 465686/2014-1), and was supported by a post-doctoral fellowship from FAPESP (Grants no. 2017/13840-8 and 2019/12410-5). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kalliu Couto, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Behavioral Science, Stensberggata 26, PB 4 St. Olavs plass, Oslo, N-0130, Norway. E-mail: coutokalliu@gmail.com.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sandaker, I., Couto, K. & de Carvalho, L.C. Selection at Three Levels of Organization: Does Structure Matter?. Behav. Soc. Iss. 28, 221–228 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00020-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00020-z