Howard Rachlin - Reinforcing and punishing thoughts (1977).pdf

8/11/2019 Howard Rachlin - Reinforcing and punishing thoughts (1977).pdf

1/7

B E H A V I O R T H E R A P Y 8 6 5 9 - 6 6 5 1977)

Re inforc ing and unishing Tho ugh ts

H O W A R D R A C H L I N

State University of New York at Stony rook

T h o u g h t s c a n n o t b e r e i n f o r c e d o r p u n i s h e d a s c a n o v e r t b e h a v i o r . A l t h o u g h

r e i n fo r c e r s o r p u n i s h e r s b r o u g h t i n t o t e m p o r a l r e l a t io n s h i p w i th v e r b a l b e h a v i o r

o r o t h e r b e h a v i o r t h a t e x p r e s s e s t h e t h o u g h t ) m a y i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e t h a t

b e h a v i o r , t h e t h o u g h t i t se l f, i f i t i s c h a n g e d , w i ll n o t s i m p l y c h a n g e i n f r e q u e n c y

b u t w i ll re f le c t t h e n e w r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a g r o u p o f b e h a v i o r s a n d t h e e n v i -

r o n m e n t .

A r e c e n t t r e n d i n b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y h a s b e e n t o u s e t h o s e t e c h n i q u e s

e f f e c ti v e in m o d i f y in g o v e r t b e h a v i o r t o m o d i f y c o v e r t b e h a v i o r . I n s o m e

c a s e s t h e r e l a ti o n o f t h is e n t e r p r i s e t o o p e r a n t c o n d i t io n i n g h a s b e e n

e m p h a s i z e d b y u s in g t h e t e r m c o v e r a n t f o r t h e c o v e r t b e h a v i o r t o b e

r e i n f o r c e d o r p u n i s h e d ( H o m m e , 1 9 6 5 ) . I n o t h e r c a s e s t h e r e l a t i o n t o

c o g n i ti v e p s y c h o l o g y is e m p h a s i z e d b y r et ai ni n g t h e t e r m c o g n i t i o n o r

t h o u g h t f o r t h e b e h a v i o r t o b e m o d i f i ed ( M e i c h e n b a u m , 1 96 9, 19 74 a).

T h e t e c h n i q u e s p r o p o s e d t o m o d i f y t h o u g h ts v a r y s o m e w h a t b u t t h e

f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e w o u l d n o t b e a t y p i c a l : A c l i e n t i s d i a g n o s e d a s

o b s e s s e d w i t h a c e r t a i n h a r m f u l t h o u g h t . T h e c l i e n t i s a s k e d t o s a y t h e

t h o u g h t o u t l o u d a n d i s t h e n p u n i s h e d . T h e n , t h e c l ie n t is a s k e d t o s a y t h e

t h o u g h t t o h i m s e l f a n d i n d i c a t e w h e n it h a s o c c u r r e d a n d i s t h e n p u n i s h e d .

F i n a l ly , t h e c l i en t is a s k e d t o p u n i sh h i m s e l f w h e n t h e t h o u g h t o c c u r s . 1

I n d iv i d u al p r o c e d u r e s v a r y b y l e a v in g o u t o n e o r a n o t h e r o f t h e a b o v e

s t e p s o r b y r e in f o r c in g a l t e rn a t i v e t h o u g h t s r a t h e r t h a n p u n i s h in g t h e

t h o u g h t t o b e e l im i n a t e d . T h e y a l s o d i ff e r in t h ei r m o d e o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t

o r p u n i s h m e n t . U s u a l l y , s e c o n d a r y r e in f o r c e r s o r p u n i s h e r s a r e u s e d

( e . g . , M e i c h e n b a u m , 1 96 9); a t t i m e s , h i e r a r c h i e s a r e a r r a n g e d s o t h a t

P r e p a r a t io n o f th i s p a p e r w a s s u p p o r t e d b y a g r a n t f ro m t h e N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n .

R e q u e s t s f o r re p r i n ts s h o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d t o H o w a r d R a c h l in , D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y ,

S t a te U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w Y o r k a t S t o n y B r o o k , S t o n y B r o o k , N Y 1 17 94 .

1 1 h a v e a r g u e d p r e v i o u s l y R a c h l i n , 1 97 4) t h a t s e l f - p u n i s h m e n t o f th i s k i n d , w h i l e it m a y

b e e f f e c t i v e , i s n o t p r o p e r p u n i s h m e n t . H o w e v e r , i t i s c o m m o n l y u s e d a s s u c h i n b e h a v i o r -

t h e r a p y , a n d w e w i ll c o n s i d e r i t h e r e t o g e t h e r w i t h o v e r t p u n i s h m e n t a n d r e i n f o r c e m e n t .

659

C o p y r i g h t @ 1 9 77 b y A s s o c i a t i o n f o r A d v a n c e m e n t o f B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y .

A l l r i g h t s o f r e p r o d u c t i o n i n a n y f o r m r e s e r v e d . I S S N 0 0 05 - 78 9 4


2/7

660 HOWARD RACHLIN

events of higher value reinforce the thought to be modified (Homme,

1965).

The purpose of this paper is to show, following the assumptions made

by behavior modifiers themselves, behaviorists and cognitivists alike, that

these procedures misdirect the application of reinforcement and may

change behavior in unexpected ways.

C TEGORY MIST KES

The logical mistake usually involved in the notion that thoughts can be

reinforced or punished is a category mistake. A category mistake consists

of treating the name for a class of events as if it, itself, were a member of

that class. Gilbert Ryle illustrates category mistakes as follows.

A foreigner visiting Oxford or Cambridge for the first time is shown a number of colleges,

libraries, playing fields, museums, scientific depar tment s and administ rative offices. He then

asks, But where is the Univers ity? I have seen where the members of the Colleges live,

where the Registrar works, where the scientists experiment and the rest. But I have not yet

seen the Univers ity. It has then to be explained to him that the University is not another

collateral institution, some ulterior counterpart to the colleges, laboratories and offices

which he has seen. The University is just the way in which all that he has already seen is

organized. When they are seen and when their co-ordination is understood, the University

has been seen. His mistake lay in his innocent assumption that, it was correct to speak of

Christ Church, The Bodleian Library, the Ashmolean Museum

nd

the University, to speak,

that is, as if the Univers ity' stood for an extra member of the class of which these other

units are members. He was mistakenly allocating the University to the same category as that

to which the other institutions belong (Ryle, 1949).

In the case of thoughts and reinforcements, a similar category mistake

may be made. Reinforcement and punishment are relationships between

behavior and environmental events. A th ough t is a name for a set of

such relationships. One reinforces or punishes behavior, not thought. A

thought may already encompass reinforcement or punishment within it.

As an example, consider the following proposition which, when acti-

vated in a person 's nervous system, might be said to constitute a thought:

I f I touch fire I will be burned. This proposition could, according to

current cognitive theory, be located in a person's long-term store and

might be activated by the sight of a fire. When activated it becomes a

thought. It might be a conscious thought or even subconscious. It would

have been acquired by the previous association of touching fires and

burning, perhaps because these were both vivid temporally related events

or perhaps through verbal mediation. Whatever the means of acquiring

the association, the role of reinforcement or punishment, if any, would be

limited to the action of the fire on the act of touching the fire. But this

action is already encompassed in the thought. It has never been part of

cognitive theory, or any other theory, that still nother reinforcer could

affect the thought. What another such reinforcement could be is difficult


3/7

REINFORCING ND PUNISHI NG THOUGHTS 66

t o c o n c e i v e . F i r s t , t h e t h o u g h t w o u l d h a v e t o b e a c t i v a t e d a n d t h e n

r e i n f o r c e d . I m a g i n e s h o w i n g a 1 0 - y r - o l d c h i l d a f i r e , p r e s u m a b l y a c t i v a t -

i ng t h e th o u g h t , I f I t o u c h t h e f ir e 1 w i l l b e b u r n e d , a n d t h e n g iv i n g h i m

a p i e c e o f c a n d y . T o w h a t e x t e n t i s t h e t h o u g h t a f f e c t e d ? I f t h e c a n d y i s

p r e s u m e d t o h a v e a n y e f f e c t o n t h e t h o u g h t a t a l l, i t w o u l d i t s e lf b e

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f ir e, t h u s d o i n g t h e e x a c t o p p o s i t e o f r e i n fo r c i n g t h e

o r i g i n a l t h o u g h t . T h e c h i l d m a y n o w a p p r o a c h f i r e s m o r e r e a d i l y . R e i n -

f o r c e r s a n d p u n i s h e r s a r e , i f n o t h i n g e l s e , v i v i d s ti m u l i . T h e y a r e l i k e l y t o

b e p a i d a t t e n t i o n . T h e y ( o r , a c c o r d i n g t o c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t s , t h e i r

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ) f o r m p a r t s o f t h o u g h t s t h e m s e l v e s . T h e i n t e n d e d m e c h a -

n i sm o f m a n i p u l a t io n i t se l f b e c o m e s p a r t o f t h e t h in g t o b e c h a n g e d .

R e i n f o r c e m e n t a n d p u n i s h m e n t m a y c h a n g e t h e th o u g h t t o r e f le c t t h e

r e l a t io n s h i p o f i ts e l e m e n t s w i th t h e r e i n f o r c e r o r p u n i s h e r . T h e y c a n n o t

a c t i n a s u p e r o r d i n a t e f a s h i o n t o s t r e n g t h e n o r w e a k e n t h e t h o u g h t i t s e l f .

W h i l e i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o r e i n f o r c e t h o u g h t s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o r e i n f o r c e

o r p u n is h v e r b a l b e h a v i o r . W h e n a c h a n g e i n v e r b a l b e h a v i o r is t h e o n l y

d e s i r e d o u t c o m e o f t h e p r o c e s s , it i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o r e f e r t o t h o u g h t s o r

cogn i t ions a t a l l .

THE RELATION OF REINFORCEMENT PUNISHMENT

AND THOUGHT

C u r r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y t e l l s u s t h a t t h o u g h t s a r e p r o p o s i t i o n s

r e p r e s e n t e d e i t h e r i n a n o r g a n i s m ' s m i n d , i n i t s n e r v o u s s y s t e m , o r i n i t s

b e h a v i o r . T h e b e h a v i o r i s t b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s s i m p l y a d e -

s c r ip t i o n o f o r g a n i z e d b e h a v i o r . T h e c o g n i t iv i s t b e l i e v e s th a t t h e p r o p o s i -

t i o n g i v e s r i s e t o t h e b e h a v i o r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d t h a t t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n h a s

a re a l e x i s t e n c e s o m e w h e r e w i t h in t h e b o d y ( A n d e r s o n & B o w e r , 1 97 3).

W h e t h e r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s i n t h e m i n d o r t h e n e r v o u s s y s t e m , i t i s

g e n e r a l l y a g r e e d t h a t t h o u g h t s h a v e b e e n o b s e r v e d s o f a r o n l y i n t h e

o r g a n i z a ti o n o f o v e r t b e h a v i o r , i n c lu d i n g v e r b a l b e h a v i o r .

I f t h o u g h t is b e h a v i o r a l o r g n i z t i o n ( o r c a u s e s s u c h o r g a n i z a t i o n ) , i t

f o l l o w s t h a t a n y o n e o v e r t b e h a v i o r c a n n o t b e a t h o u g h t . T o o b s e r v e a

t h o u g h t m u s t b e t o o b s e r v e a n o r g an i z e d s e q u e n c e t h a t o c c u r s o v e r t im e .

T h e t h o u g h t m u s t e n c o m p a s s t h e w h o l e s e t o f b e h a v i o r s , i n c lu d i n g v e r b a l

e x p r e s s i o n , b y w h i c h w e k n o w t h a t t h e th o u g h t o c c u r s . I t is n o t p o s s i b l e

f o r th e t h o u g h t t o o c c u r o v e r a b r i e f t im e s p a n w h i l e t h e b e h a v i o r t h a t i t

c a u s e s o c c u r s o v e r a n e x t e n d e d t i m e s p a n . T h i s n o t i o n , t h a t a b e h a v i o r

c a n r u n o f f i n a b a l l is t ic m a n n e r a n d s ti ll b e t h o u g h t f u l , w a s r e j e c t e d b y

L a s h l e y ( 1 9 5 1 ) a n d b y m o s t p s y c h o l o g i s t s f o l l o w i n g h i m . A g a i n , t h e

b e h a v i o r i s t s a y s t h a t t h e t h o u g h t is t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , w h i l e t h e c o g n i t i v i s t

s a y s t h a t i t c u s e s t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n n e i t h e r c a s e i s t h e t h o u g h t t h e

e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i n a s e n t e n c e .

I t is im p o r t a n t t o s t re s s t h e n o n i d e n t i t y o f t h o u g h t s a n d v e r b a l b e -


4/7

662 HOW RD R CHLIN

havior. If a thought were

only

the verbal expression of a proposition and

this verbal expression could cause overt thoughtful behavior, then it

would be possible to reinforce and punish thoughts. It makes little sense,

however, that verbal behavior should be the cause of other behavior. For

instance, in what sense could the

sentence

I think I will go to the

movies, cause the act of going to the movies? Neither current cognitive

theory nor behavioral theory would attribute such power to the sentence.

Behaviorists would say the cause of both the verbal expression, I think I

will go to the mov ies, and the behavior of going to the movies is a set of

observable events (behaviors, neutral stimuli, reinforcers, punishers) in

the past. Cognitivists would say that the cause of both the verbal expres-

sion and the behavior is an event or organization of events currently

active in the nervous system. In fact, one cognitive therapy (Ellis, 1962)

rests on discovering

unexpressed

thoughts underlying overt maladaptive

behavior.

MO IFYING THOUGH TS

A proposition (hence, a thought) could refer wholly to environmental

events , such as, The ball is green, or to interactions between be-

havioral and environmental events such as, I threw the bal l.

Consider ways of reducing such thoughts that might be used by be-

havior therapists. First, suppose we connect the client to an electric

shock apparatus and shock him whenever he indicated he had the thought

or instruct him to shock himself whenever he had the thought. Probably

the verbal expression of the sentence would be reduced. But such

punishment might leave unaffected the behaviors exhibited in various

tests to see if the thought were really there. How many times would we

have to shock a mother after she said, Playing near open windows is

dangerous , before she allowed her 2-year-old child to play on the win-

dowsill? What we are likely to do is to destroy not the thought itself but

the connection between the thought and its verbal expression. The person

punished for the thought might now simply lie. The therapist will note a

reduction in verbal expression of the thought and perhaps, by generaliza-

tion, other verbal expressions similar in sound or in meaning to the

original.

One could now imagine additional treatment. Suppose we punish the

lady not only for saying the thought but also for pulling her child away

from the window, for closing the window, for nodding her head whenever

she hears someone else express the thought, etc. Suppose we persist in

these methods until one by one we erase every known behavioral man-

ifestation of the thought. We will have now replaced the thought, A-B,

with I f l say A-B or do A-B or agree with A-B, I will be pun ished . Such

procedures are undoubtedly what most people understand as brainwash-


5/7

REINFORCING ND PUNISH ING THOUGHTS 66

ing. What may make them aversive is the continuance of the subject's

experience with A-B. But as long as the subject, regardless of his or her

behavior with respect to A-B, still behaves as previously with respect to

C-D and all other experienced associations, it would be more parsimoni-

ous to assume that the relevant propositions in storage are C- D,

E- F , G- H, etc., and A- B plus the additional thought, Expres-

sion of A-B leads to punishment. Regardless of how thorough our

techniques might be, none would remove the thought as long as the

experience of A-B remained as before.

To put it more concretely, we may get a person to say Th e sky is

green easily enough and to act as though the sky were indeed green,

even while, in fact, the sky remained blue. But unless the person were

also confused about other color names (for instance, calling the grass

yellow), we would most parsimoniously attribute to him the thought,

The sky is blue, but I must say it is green. This is the only thought

consistent with his other thoughts, i.e., with his other behavior and

experience. But let experience itself be changed, say by the repeated

presentation of a green sky, and the thought will change accordingly.

THOUGHTS ND BELIEFS

One may distinguish between belief and thought by saying that the

thought is mere ly verbal expression, while belief involves something else.

But such an argument represents another ca tegory mistake. A belief is not

something other than a thought; it is an attribute of a thought. Given a

thought, we believe it is true or believe it is false, or are neutral about its

truth or falsity, or its truth or falsity is irrelevant. There are not cognitive

elements labeled bel ief s that can be set aside and compared with

th ou gh ts . When behavior is examined for signs of thoughtfulness , it

can also be examined for degree of belief. Belief in a proposition may be

ascertained by the tone of voice in which it is expressed and by the

accompanying behavior. Before we would want to say that a person

strongly believed a proposition to be true, we would want to see a fairly

large sample of his behavior. Verbal behavior may or may not be part of

this sample.

In most cases behavior therapy is concerned with thoughts that the

client strongly believes are true or false. Some therapies (e.g., Ellis, 1962)

are willing to assign strong belief values to certain thoughts that may

never be verbally expressed by the client. Such a therapist might say,

Your behavior is consistent with the thought, 'I must be loved by

everyone for everything I do.' The therapist concludes that this is

indeed a thought that the client believes strongly, even though he may

never have expressed it verbally.


6/7


7/7

R E I N F O R C I N G A N D P U N I S H I N G T H O U G H T S

6 6 5

h i s p e r f o r m a n c e a n d t h e s ta r s o n h e l m e t s o f c o l l e g e f o o t b a l l p l a y e r s a t te s t

t o t h e p o w e r o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t t o w o r k o n c o m p l e x b e h a v i o r . B u t , in t h e s e

i n s t a n c e s , o v e r t b e h a v i o r i s c l ea r ly m a r k e d fo r r e i n fo r c e m e n t . A l s o , m a n y

c u r r en t b e h a v i o r m o d i fi c a ti o n t e c h n i q u e s c o m e in p a c k a g e s w h e r e b y

b o t h t h o u g h t s a n d b e h a v i o r a r e s a i d t o b e m o d i f i e d ( M a h o n e y , 1 9 7 4 ) . T o

t h e e x t e n t t ha t s u c h t e c h n i q u e s a re s u c c e s s f u l t h e y m o d i f y t h o u g h t f u l

b e h a v i o r ( a n o rg a n i z e d s e q u e n c e o f b e h a v i o r ), n o t t w o s e p a r at e t h in g s:

t h o u g h t p l u s b e h a v i o r .

I t i s n o t h e r a p e u t i c s h o r t c u t t o r e in f o r c e t h o u g h t s o r c o g n i t i o n s o r

c o v e r a n t s d i r e c tl y s i n c e n o n e o f t h e s e i s a b e h a v i o r s u s c e p t i b l e t o b e

r e in f o r ce d . A t t e m p t s t o r e in f o r ce o r p u n i sh n o n b e h a v i o r a l e v e n t s m a y

e n d b y u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y r e i n f o r c in g o r p u n i s h i n g b e h a v i o r s , a n d , b y e n -

c o u r a g i n g c l i e n t s t o li e a b o u t w h a t t h e y a r e th i n k i n g , t h e s e a t t e m p t s d o

m o r e h a r m t h a n g o o d . T h e a d v a n t a g e o f b e h a v i o r th e r a p y h a s a l w a y s

b e e n t h a t it f o r c e d t h e t h e r a p i st a n d t h e c l i e n t t o d e f in e t h e b e h a v i o r t o b e

c h a n g e d a n d d id n o t a ll o w t h e e v a s i o n s a n d a b s t ra c t io n s o f p r e v i o u s

t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h c l a i m e d t o c u r e th e d i s e a s e w h i l e o f t e n l e a v i n g a ll t h e

s y m p t o m s in t a c t. T h i s t y p e o f d o d g e h a s , i t s e e m s , p r o v e d a ll t o o t e m p t -

i n g f o r b e h a v i o r t h e r a p i st s t h e m s e l v e s w h o n o w c l ai m t o g e t rid o f c o g n i -

t i o n s b y r e d u c i n g t h e i r v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n , y e t t h e y l e a v e o t h e r o v e r t

b e h a v i o r i n t a c t .

REFEREN ES

A n d e r s o n J . R . , Bo w e r , G . H . Human associative memory. W a s h in g to n , DC: W i n s t o n

1973.

C a s t e n a d a C. A separate reality: Further conversations with Don Juan. N e w Y o r k : P o c k e t

Books, 1972.

E l l i s

A . Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. N e w Y o r k : S tu a r t , 1 96 2.

H o m m e , L . E . P e r s p e c t i v e s in p s y c h o l o g y X X I V . C o n t r o l o f c o v e r a n t s t h e o p e r a n t s o f t h e

mind . Psychological Record, 1965, 15, 501-511,

L a s h l e y K. S . T h e p r o b l e m o f s e r i a l o r d e r i n b e h a v i o r . In L. A..leffreys Ed.), Cerebral

mechanisms in behavior. Ne w Yo r k : W i l e y , 1 9 5 1 .

M a h o n e y M , J . , T h o r e s e n , C . E . , Da n a h e r , B . G . C o v e r t b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n : A n

e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l o g u e .

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,

1972, 3 , 7-14.

M a h o n e y M . Cognition and behavior modification. Cambr idge , MA: Ba l l inger , 1974 .

M e i c h e n b a u m D . T h e e f f e ct s o f i n s tr u c t io n s a n d r e i n f o rc e m e n t o n t h i n k i n g a n d la n g u a g e

b e h a v i o r s o f s c h i z o p h r e n i c s . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 196 9, 7, 101-114.

M e i c h e n b a u m D . Cognitive behavior modification. M o r r i s t o wn , NJ : Ge n e r a l L e a r n in g

Press , 1974a.

M e i c h e n b a u m D . S e l f -i n s tr u c t io n a l m e t h o d s .

In

F . H . Ka n f e r A . P . Go ld s t e in ( E d s . ) ,

Helping People Change.

Ne w Yo r k : P e r g a m o n , 1 97 4b .

Ra c h l in , H . S e l f - c o n t r o l . Behaviorism, 1974 , 1, 9 4 -108 .

R y l e G . The concept of mind. L o n d o n : H u t c h i n s o n 1949.

RECEIVED: Fe bru ary 28, 1976 ; REVISED: Ap ri l I , 1976

FINAL ACCEPTANCE; Ap ri l

20, 1976

Documents

Howard Rachlin - Reinforcing and punishing thoughts (1977).pdf