I Shouldn’t Have Opened my Big Mouth:

Skinner’s Analysis of Self-Editing

Mark L. Sundberg
marksundberg@astound.net

B.F. Skinner Memorial Address

18th Annual Conference
of the
International Society for Behaviorology
March 18-20, 2006
Do you know anyone who emits verbal
behavior that is…

 Obnoxious  Manding for irrelevant or

 Offensive odd information
 Loud  Just useless tacts of
 Incoherent commonplace stimuli
 Socially inappropriate  Dominating a
 Punishing to the listener conversation
 Rambling  Endlessly digressing
 Confusing to the listener  Excessively manding on
 Uncontrolled intraverbal the listener
behavior
 Do you know speakers who...
 “Put their foot in their
mouths”
 “Can’t get their words out”
 Can’t tie their thoughts
together
 “Don’t listen to others”
 “Spoil the point of a joke”
 “Have an opinion on
everything”
 “Lose their train of
thought”
 “Forget what they are
talking about”
 “Never get to the point”
 “Can’t explain what they
mean”
 “Never shut up”
 Skinner’s (1957) Analysis of
Self-Editing
• Skinner devoted three chapters in Verbal Behavior to self-editing
(Chapters 15, 16, 17).
• “The formulation is inherently practical and suggests immediate
technological applications at almost every step” (p. 12).
• “Verbal responses are described and manipulated by the speaker
with appropriate autoclitics which augment and sharpen the effect
upon the listener. They are also often examined for their effect
upon the speaker or prospective listener, and then either rejected
or released. This process of “editing” is an additional activity of
the speaker” (Skinner, 1957, p. 369).
 The Rejection of Verbal Behavior

 “A response which has been emitted in overt form

may be recalled or revoked by an additional
response” (p. 369).
 “Subvocal behavior can, of course, be revoked
before it has been emitted audibly” (p. 370).
 “Much of the self-stimulation required in the
autoclitic description and composition of verbal
behavior seems to occur prior to even subaudible
emission” (p. 371).
 The Rejection of Verbal Behavior

 “In both written and vocal behavior changes are made

on the spur of the moment and so rapidly that we
cannot reasonably attribute them to actual review of
the covert forms” (p. 371).
 “The subject is a difficult one because it has all the
disadvantages of private stimulation” (p. 371).
 Why Behavior is Rejected?

 “A speaker usually rejects a response because it

has been punished” (p. 371).
 Why Verbal Behavior is Punished?

 “Verbal behavior may be objectionable to the

listener simply as noise” (p. 373).
 “Verbal behavior is frequently punished because
of deficient stimulus control” (p. 373).
 “Verbal behavior is usually punished--if only by
its ineffectiveness--when it is under poor audience
control” (p. 374).
 “Verbal behavior may be automatically self-
punishing” (p. 375).
 The Effects of Punishment

 “Concealing the identity of the speaker” (p. 377).

 “Recession to the covert level” (p. 377).
 “Talking to one’s self” (p. 377).
 “Disguised speech” (pp. 377-378).
 The Autoclitics of Editing

 “One form of editing which involves an obvious

process of review and revision consists of emitting
the response but qualifying it with an autoclitic
which reduces the threat of punishment” (p. 377).
 The Autoclitics of Editing

• “If all one’s verbal responses were invariably

reinforced, one would be almost constantly
occupied with verbal behavior” (p. 380).
• “The process of editing generated by punishment
greatly increases the appropriateness of verbal
behavior to all features of an occasion, including
the audience” (p. 380).
 Positive Consequences

 “The automatic reinforcement of verbal behavior

also plays a role in the process of editing” (p.
380).
 “Many other positive consequences come into
play when verbal behavior is produced to satisfy
specifications” (p. 381).
 Skinner’s Summary of Self-Editing

“ The production of raw verbal behavior following the

principles outlined in Parts II and III comes first.
Autoclitic responses or activities (Part IV) then occur. The
resulting behavior may not immediately reach the ultimate
listener. Because of punishment of other behavior it may
be held up for review by the speaker or writer. Changes
occur in the act of review which lead to rejection, to
emission in a qualified form, or full-fledged emission.
Often the process is not complete until the speaker has
resorted to other activities to produce alternative forms of
responses (Chapter 17)” (p. 382).
 Special Conditions of Self-Editing
 “Verbal behavior is not always subject to the review
discussed in the last chapter. Some variables are too
powerful to wait for editing” (p. 384).
 “Defective feedback” (p. 384).
 “Defective self-observation” (pp. 385-386).
 “Defective responses to controlling variables” (pp. 386-
388).
 “Automatic verbal behavior” (pp. 388-390).
Self-Strengthening of Verbal Behavior

• “In the process of composition and editing the

speaker arranges, qualifies, withholds, or releases
verbal behavior which already exists in some
strength in his repertoire” (p. 403).
 Techniques
 “Manipulating stimuli” (p. 405-410).
– Self-prompts, self-probes, change the audience
 “Changing the level of editing” (p. 410).
 “Mechanical production of verbal behavior” (p. 411)
 “Changing motivation and emotional variables” (p. 412).
 “Incubation” (p. 413).
 ‘Production and editing” (p. 414-415).
 “Building new verbal responses” (415-417).
An Application of Skinner’s Analysis of Self-Editing:
Four Types of Self-Editing Problems

 There are multiple variables involved in self-editing

and it is perhaps one of the most complex types of
verbal behavior.
 There are different contingencies in effect for the
many different examples of unedited verbal behavior
presented by Skinner (1957).
 A functional analysis of verbal behavior (Chapter 1)
can be used to identify the different contingencies
 “Caring”
 One type of history and current EO results in what
might be identified as a speaker who “cares” about
appropriate and effective verbal behavior reaching
a specific listener.
 “Caring”
 “Caring” can be defined as:
– Behavior evoked, in part, by an EO involving a
high value of positive listener responses to verbal
behavior due to a particular conditioning history.
– For example, a speaker who teaches parents basic
behavior modification cares about the way his
listeners react to his verbal behavior because he
has a strong EO for producing certain positive
effects on the listener due to his conditioning
history.
 “Not caring”

 Some speakers emit socially inappropriate or

ineffective verbal behavior as a result of their
particular conditioning history and their current
EOs. These speakers may be classified as “not
caring” about their verbal behavior producing
positive effects on a specific listener.
 “Not caring”
 “Not caring” can be defined as:
– Behavior evoked by an EO related to a high
value of negative listener reaction due to a
specific conditioning history, or verbal behavior
evoked by a discriminative stimulus, without an
EO variable related to positive listener reaction,
also due to a particular conditioning history.
 “Not caring”
 For example, a speaker who emits racial slurs
doesn’t care about a positive reaction from the
targeted listener, but may care about the listener
reaction from a group of peers. The person of a
different race and the presence of a peer group
may be stimuli in the presence of which particular
responses have a history of reinforcement.
 “Not caring”
 The EO related to this reinforcement may be
strong at that particular moment (e.g., the person
wants to impress his peers now perhaps because of
earlier behavior suggesting he was not aggressive
enough to be part of the group). It is also possible
that the speaker is reinforced by the negative
reaction of the listener to whom the slur is
directed.
 “Aware”

 A speaker who can and does tact his own verbal

behaviors, the sources of control for his verbal
behavior, and a listener’s response to his behavior,
may be classified as being “aware” of the effects
of his verbal behavior on listeners.
 “Aware” defined by Skinner:
 “We are aware of what we are doing when we can
describe the topography of our behavior. We are
aware of why we are doing it when we describe the
relevant variables, such as the important aspects of
the occasion of the reinforcement” (Skinner, 1969,
p. 244).
 For example, an aware speaker may tact the fact that
listeners are looking away from him and attending
to other stimuli, he may then engage in certain types
of self-editing that may alter the listener behavior.
 “Unaware”

 Some speakers, however, do not tact the

contingencies related to their verbal behavior and
are not under good audience stimulus control.
These speakers may be classified as being
“unaware” of the effects of their verbal behavior.
 “Unaware” can be defined as:

 The failure to tact one’s own behavior and the

variables of which it is a function.
 For example, a person who has consumed large
amounts of alcohol may fail to tact the fact that his
verbal behavior is loud, offensive, and socially
inappropriate. In addition, the typical consequences
(e.g., social punishment) which reduce the
probability of such behavior under other
circumstances (e.g., when sober) are ineffective.
 Self-Editing Classification Table

 Table 1 presents four types of self-editing

problems based on the classification presented
above. Speakers can be classified as:
 “aware and caring”
 “unaware and caring”
 “aware and not caring”
 “unaware and not caring”
 Aware and Caring:
“Weak Verbal Repertoires”

 Intraverbal sequences that  Does not “articulate well”

are “hard to follow”  Illogical sequences of
 Mands for irrelevant or ideas
odd information  Incompleteness
 Not getting to the point  Confusing to the listener
 Forgetting “lost my train  Soft spoken
of thought”  Rambling
 Inability to “explain what
 Stuttering
I mean”
 Analysis of Aware and Caring

 Weak public speaking repertoire

 Weak intraverbals
 Weak mands for information
 Weak autoclitics
 Excessive punishment history
 Insufficient reinforcement history
 Deficient stimulus control
 Analysis of Aware and Caring

 These speakers have an EO to be effective and know that

they are often not good speakers. This weak repertoire
may produce emotional by-products often identified as low
self-esteem, shyness, low self concept, or social phobias,
lack of confidence, or have personal interaction problems.
They may emit defensive verbal behavior such as “I’m not
making myself clear” or “I know I’m not saying this well.”
 Analysis of Aware and Caring

 These speakers may avoid verbal contact

altogether or over-edit their verbal behavior to the
point where the rate of verbal behavior is
extremely low. These speakers want to improve
their verbal repertoires and have often tried
several ways. They are aware of their failure as
evidenced by statements such as “I’m not making
sense.” They may engage in too much editing.
 Analysis of Aware and Caring

 These speakers may have a history involving too

much punishment, and not enough reinforcement.
 Their EO for effective verbal behavior is strong.
 Their basic intraverbal repertoire and self-editing
repertoire may be weak or defective.
 Intervention
 Of the four different groups presented in this classification, this
group seems to be the most likely to seek treatment, and to have a
successful treatment outcome. Intervention strategies are plentiful.
Skinner (1957, pp. 405-417) describes several techniques for
teaching a willing participant to edit their own verbal behavior.
 For example, the Toastmasters organization is designed to shape
public speaking skills in a forgiving and nonaversive environment.
The basic goal is to allow a speaker to practice emitting carefully
edited verbal behaviors.
 Intervention

• “A person who has been ‘made aware of himself’

is in a better position to predict and control his
own behavior (Skinner, 1974, p. 31).
• However, “Sustained awareness can be a
disadvantage. There is no reason why we should
scrutinize every response we make, or examine
every occasion upon which we respond” (Skinner,
1969, p. 245).
 Unaware and Caring:
“High Rate of Trivial Verbal Behavior”
 Uncontrolled intraverbal  A rasping tone
behavior in the form of idle  Undue sibilance
chatter  Heavy alliteration
 Useless tacting of  Heavy use of clichés
commonplace stimuli
 Singsong
 High rate of mands
 Too obvious
 Dominates a conversation
 Too commonplace
 “Never shuts up”
 Shopworn
 Too loud a voice
 Lots of bad jokes
 Exaggerating
 Excessive repetition
 An Analysis of the Causes of
Unaware but Caring
 Insufficient punishment history
 Differential reinforcement history
 MO for listener attention
 Automatic reinforcement
 Defective audience control
 Defective stimulus control
 Failure to tact own behavior
 Weak listener repertoires
 Strong intraverbal and mand repertoires
 Failure to emit appropriate autoclitics
 An Analysis of the Causes of
Unaware but Caring
 Typically, punishment reduces this behavior (Skinner, 1957),
but there may not be enough punishment along with too much
differential reinforcement, and a strong EO for attention.
 They may be automatically reinforced by their own verbal
behavior (they like to hear their own voice).
 They may have weak listener repertoires, or weak EOs for the
other person’s point of view, areas of interest, or EOs.
 They may fail to tact the effects of their VB on their listeners,
hence fail to emit the appropriate autoclitic behavior of self-
editing behavior to decrease the aversive effects of their VB.
 All of these variables may combine to evoke an excessive
amount of verbal behavior (the person just won’t shut up).
 Intervention
 This population may not seek treatment because they are “unaware” that
there is a problem, but intervention could be quite successful.
 Skinner suggests a potential intervention strategy for this group. “A mere
reduction of the relative frequency of reinforcement would reduce this
activity, but probably not to a reasonable level. The process of extinction
as employed in discrimination, brings verbal behavior under appropriate
stimulus control, but the conditions under which verbal behavior is
reinforced are so extensive and so confusing that something more is
probably needed. The process of editing generated by punishment
greatly increase the appropriateness of verbal behavior to all features of
an occasion, including the audience” (p. 380).
 Aware and Uncaring
“Offensive”
 Loud  Obnoxious
 Lying  Hurtful
 Cursing  Angry
 Generally punishing to  Negative
the listener
 Prejudice, racist,
 Gives something away
sexist, etc.
 Spoils the point of a
joke  Socially inappropriate
 An Analysis of the Causes of
Aware and Not Caring

 Insufficient punishment history

 Insufficient reinforcement history
 Excessive punishment history
 Differential reinforcement history
 EO for negative listener effects
 Weak EOs for socially appropriate VB
 Automatic reinforcement
 Socially defective audience control
 An Analysis of the Causes of
Aware but Not Caring
 Speakers who fall in this category have a unique reinforcement
and punishment history.
 The typical social punishers used by the verbal community have
been ineffective and often a select verbal community has
provided differential reinforcement for the offending verbal
behavior, especially when directed towards others.
 These individuals may be able to tact the effects of their
behaviors on listeners, but they are reinforced by the negative
reactions.
 Many children with developmental disabilities are reinforced by
reprimands and negative reactions of listeners. Some people
just like to piss other people off!
 Intervention

 Speakers who emit this type of verbal behavior

probably do not seek treatment because they do
not feel as if anything is wrong.
 They see the problem as being in the listener who
“can’t take a joke” or is a wimp.
 Therefore, it may be quite difficult to change this
behavior because of the difficulty to control the
relevant contingencies.
 Unaware and Uncaring
DD, MI, Drugs and Alcohol

 Illogical rambling
 Incoherent, mumbling
 Delusional
 Self-talk
 Far-fetched intraverbal sequences... “flight of
ideas”
 Odd mands
 An Analysis of the Causes of
Unaware and Uncaring

 Biological, medical, physiological

 MR/MI/DD diagnosis
 Drugs/alcohol
 Sleep deprivation
 Basic verbal and social skills deficits
 All the above environmental variables
 An Analysis of the Causes of
Unaware and Not Caring

 Speakers who emit this type of unedited verbal

behavior don’t care if they offend their listeners.
 They don’t care about the effects of their verbal
behavior on others.
 The don’t tact their own verbal behavior or the
controlling variables.
 They may largely be their own listeners in that
they are automatically reinforced by their own
verbal behavior.
 Intervention
• With the exception of children and some DD
individuals, this group is not very susceptible to
intervention.
• Punishment is probably ineffective with this
population.
 Conclusions

 “Self-Editing is one step beyond the autoclitic. It

is the highest form of verbal behavior” (Michael,
1974).
 Punishment seems to be the main independent
variable responsible for shaping self-editing.
 Of course reinforcement also plays a role, as well
as EOs, stimulus control, automatic and
intermittent reinforcement, and the other
behavioral principles.
 Conclusions

 Self-editing involves not only the concepts of the

basic elementary operants, but multiple control,
autoclitics, automatic reinforcement, private
events, and thinking. This seems to reflect the
heart of radical behaviorism.
 Skinner provides several self-editing techniques
that should be developed into an intervention
package.
 Conclusion

 “Self-Editing is one step beyond the autoclitic. It

is the highest form of verbal behavior” (Michael,
1974).
 Punishment seems to be the main independent
variable responsible for shaping self-editing.
 Of course reinforcement also plays a role, as well
as EOs, stimulus control, automatic and
intermittent reinforcement, and the other
behavioral principles.