REACTIONS OF A LABORATORY BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST TO A "THINK TANK" ON METACONTINGENCIES AND CULTURAL ANALYSIS

Behavior and Social Issues, Spring 2006 by Branch, Marc N

For a scientist who spends most of his time in a research laboratory studying behavior of non-human animals, participating in a "think tank" about issues such as cultural evolution and cultural change was challenging, interesting, and educational. My main focus at the "tank" was in attempting to determine what sorts of experiments are needed and are possible in attempts to understand how behavior of aggregates of individuals is established, modified, and maintained. Several participants presented excellent examples of programs that have produced impressive and societally useful changes in aggregate behavior of substantial numbers of individuals. The think tank group generally found it useful to organize what is going on in those kinds of interventions in terms of two major concepts, macrocontingencies and metacontingencies.

Macrocontingencies are individual contingencies applied directly to a large number of people. Ordinary laws and religious proscriptions are examples. Thus, the concept of macrocontingency requires conventional analyses to understand how it works. Macrocontingency simply refers to situations in which the same contingency is applied to many people. Macrocontingencies, therefore, can influence the behavior a large numbers of individuals, depending on how many of them can be subjected to the contingency. In contrast, the concept of metacontingency contains many more subtleties. A metacontingency (see Glenn, 1988) refers to what are called an "interlocking" set of contingencies for a group of individuals, such that particular individuals are not exposed to the same contingencies, but to different ones. The behavior established and maintained by contingencies for one person dictate contingencies for other persons. The result of the interdependent contingencies that participate in a metacontingency is a particular outcome that serves to keep the interlocking contingencies interconnected. A small-scale example of a metacontingency can be found in a corporation in which people play different interdependent roles, the common outcome of which is the product the company produces. The success of the product in the marketplace determines if the set of contingencies, and thus the behavior engendered by them, continues. At a larger scale, metacontingencies can be abstracted from cultural activities and are thought to play a role in the evolution of cultures. The metacontingency concept is consistent with speculations about how the environment has played a role in the selection of cultural practices (e.g., Diamond, 1997; Harris, 1989).

It can be argued effectively that macrocontingencies and metacontingencies both provide useful views of how cultural practices develop and are maintained, so they are concepts worthy of analysis. At issue is how that analysis is best accomplished. One approach, of course, is to attempt to arrange macro- or metacontingencies, and see what happens (e.g., Erickson, Mattaini, & McGuire, 2004).

Arranging macrocontingencies is relatively simple, at least in principle. For example, by getting an ordinance passed, one could greatly increase the fine (or jail sentence) for selling tobacco cigarettes to minors. That contingency would be applied to all who sell cigarettes, so the contingency would be widely in effect (to the degree it could be enforced) and presumably change the behavior of many individuals. In addition, it would likely have a cascading effect in resulting in a macrocontingency for underage smokers. Specifically, extinction of behavior allocated to purchasing cigarettes would be in effect. That contingency would be in effect for many more people than the original contingency on the behavior of sellers. Macrocontingencies, therefore, can have very widespread effects.

Arranging metacontingencies is more difficult. In fact, in most cases it seems unlikely that control could be gained over, for example, an entire market so that whether a certain product is successful or not could be experimentally controlled. Research on metacontingencies, as a consequence, has focused on attempting to identify some of the interlocking contingencies "inside" the presumed metacontingency so that those contingencies can be altered in such a way that the overall contingency is modified. For example, one might alter contingencies for someone in the marketing department of a corporation, and then observe what happens to the behavior of the individual, the behavior of other individuals whose contingencies are affected by marketing decisions, and the overall success in sales.

From an experimentalist's (or at least this experimentalist's) view, both metacontingencies and macrocontingencies involve behavioral processes that are currently poorly understood. Inadequate understanding is an invitation to research, and that will be the focus of the remainder of this article.

Three key interrelated areas of research are clearly related to understanding how meta and macrocontingencies exert their effects. Those three areas deal with understanding verbal regulation of behavior, understanding social interactions, and understanding how effects of experience cumulate across one's life. The areas are related because verbal regulation of behavior depends on social processes, many social processes involve verbal regulation, and both result from cumulated experience. Despite their intertwined nature, however, I shall treat the three domains separately. My goal is to provide a broad outline of the questions about these processes that could drive future research.