A procedure for the investigation of possible sources of stimulus control for verbal responses related to an observed behavior

Abstract

Technically, verbal reports and explanations can be considered tacts. Tacts of behavior, in which the speaker behaves verbally under the control of another person's behavior (or his/her own behavior) are important. According to this point of view, mentalistic linternalistic descriptions or explanations of behavior are verbal responses emitted under the control of variables/stimuli occurring inside the observed organism and interpreted by the speaker as controlling this organism's responses. Therefore the emission of this type of verbal response (intemalistic explanations) would be differentially evoked when the antecedent stimulation controlling the verbal behavior is manipulated. The present study's goals was to verify if changes in the antecedent and consequent stimulation of an observed behavior would alter its description! explanation. Six adults were instructed to watch two short films. In each film the mouse clicking of an individual was controlled by points earned. The computer screen was also shown on the films. In one film the mouse-clicking behavior was under the control of a multiple schedule VI4/DRLI O:s and changes on the computer screen were the SD for each component; on the other film the controlling schedule was a :MIX VI4/DRLIOs and there were no changes on the computer screen when the components changed. Participants were instructed to explain the mouse clicking behavior in both films. Participant's verbalizations were classified according to classes labeled as irrtema1istic explanations, extemalistic explanations, and explanations

of the observer's own behavior. Results showed that the verbalizations in which the observers talked about their own behavior were the most frequent ones. Internalistic and externalistic verbalizations occurred with similar frequency and there was no significant difference (in number or type) between verbalizations emitted during the different films. This result was interpreted as showing that variables present only in the Multiple Schedule Film or exclusively in the Mixed Schedule Film were not responsible, by themselves, for the emission of verbalizations. Results are discussed in terms of the participants' histories of reinforcement and of specific features of both films. The heuristic value of the experimental design for the investigation of generalized social practices responsible for culturally accepted modes of description! explanation is also discussed.